BCAP maintains its earlier objection. There are several viewpoints that are missing fromthe TVIA including WSRF Framework F10 (Whitehouse St) and F11 (Victoria Grove) at the backsof listed Georgian buildings in the Bedminster Conservation Area fringe. These should now beproduced looking south towards the site and Victoria Park beyond. In addition, under 40% of theF1 viewpoint panorama from the North Park Slope interpretation board into the City and beyondhas been produced at scale. [Appendix B sheet 25]. Some intensively used viewpoints like GaolFerry Bridge are just left as glass half full text narratives in the TVIA. This is not credible evidenceof lack-of-harm, particularly for a scheme of this mass and height. In addition, written commentaryassessment is often nuanced toward summer tree screening and not winter views. Views of theproposal from within the Park in Appendix B are few given the numerous predictions of the TVIAspider diagram. Or "ZTV, Appendix 1, figure 7". The playground view (sheet 22) in the North Westnear St Luke's Road Railway Bridge starklyshows block D in its entirety. ZTV Modelling predicts south park views of block D over the hill crestat c. 0.5km range from the Hill Avenue entrances, which would be transformational for park users.No formal shadow surveys have been presented, if undertaken. Shading could reasonably beexpected to reach into the Conservation Area. (<100m) and neighbouring framework plots.

The height, scale and mass of the proposed buildings, particularly the taller structures, will have asubstantial and harmful impact on the setting of relevant heritage assets. The excessive densityand overbearing height of the buildings along with monotonous architectural design underminesthe setting, character and appearance of the area as a whole and the adjacent Conservation Area.The design needs to be high quality architecture. It is not, it is value engineered, anywhere

architecture that can be seen across Bristol and in Citiesbeyond. In this instance the proposal does not provide sufficient public benefits that wouldoutweigh the permanent harm caused. It therefore does not accord with the requirements ofparagraphs 210, 212, 215, 216 and 219 of the NPPF and relevant Local Plan heritage policies.

I strongly object to the proposition of yet another super-tall building being developed inclose proximity to Victoria Park, representing further screening of the views from the northernslopes of the park across the city. To permit such a development would represent the continuedprivatisation of desirable views across the city, sold off to private developers and their rent-payingtenants. As has been mentioned by other comments, to maintain sightlines only to landmarks doesnot make this an acceptable development in terms of its impact on those enjoying views from thepark, for the same reason that we choose to enjoy a panorama of the city rather than lookingthrough a telescope.

Please do not permit such a development and add further insult to insult. Many gather upon thenorthern slopes during the lighter months to enjoy the views throughout the day and, particularly,in the evening. To construct such a proposal would utterly obliterate the visual amenity and charmthat currently exists and, in doing so, eliminate a fairly spontaneous and ephemeral point of open-air congregation in the city - one that evokes a sense of community amongst strangers.

I am opposed to this development because I don't believe it is needed for more studentaccommodation. We have a perfectly nice new build for students on Whitehouse Lane and DalbyAvenue which seems largely empty.The 19 story height seems unnecessary, no reason for it. It is unsightly, out of character with thearea and interuptive of views.We need housing but this needs a serious rethink if it is to enhance our pleasant community andbeautiful park. Greed is not something we condone in this community.

We strongly object to the proposal as the height of the main building is overbearing forthe residential properties in York Road. The houses and flats are in between a busy road andfuture development behind. There are already several tall buildings at the front and another at therear will create a canyon for the existing residents. We do not object to the development of thearea for housing but the proposal for high rise flats is not satisfying the demands for familyaccommodation. There is a large demand for properties with gardens in central Bristol which wewould like to see addressed.

Very out of character with local area, impacting on views from all directions, poor qualityand crowded build, impacts adversely on local environment including the park and local school.Extremely negative impact on Bristol's iconic skyline.

2

the surrounding context through the use of wide angle photos and irrelevant viewpoints.

Directly referencing the SPD Q3 Visual Quality (fig.12) as policy confirmationAGAINST a contextual building in this location:

Locational criteria Tall buildings are more likely to be supported in locations:

- where they are likely to have a positive impact on the socio-economic health of thewider neighbourhood (THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS LOCATION)

-within reasonable walking distance of a range of local facilities and public transport(PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS AT THE OUTER LIMITS OF ACCESIBILITY ACCORDING TO THESPD)

- where they can help support patronage to proposed new public transportinfrastructure (THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS IN THE PROPOSAL)

- close to other tall residential or commercial clusters of tall buildings where it can bedemonstrated that a new tall building serves to raise the quality and coherence of thecluster, without creating adverse impacts on the micro climate (NOT RELEVANT TOOTHER TALL BUILDINGS OR CLUSTERS APART FROM SETTING A PRECEDENT FOROTHER LOCATIONS)

- at locations where the provision of a landmark building would clearly improve thelegibility of the city. (NOT THE CASE IN THIS LOCATION)

A tall building should not be located where:

- it hides or masks the topography of the city (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it harms valued views from key vantage-points (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it has a detrimental impact on the city’s historic environment (IT DOES IN THIS

LOCATION)- it has a significant negative impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers or on the public

realm (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it has a negative impact on existing nearby renewable energy systems (TBD)- there is insufficient transport, utilities or community infrastructure to support a more

intensive form of development. (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)

3. PBSA Overdominance – The 19-storey student accommodation (Block D) underminesthe intended mixed-tenure vision and risks short-term transient occupancy dominatingthe local character. This contravenes WSRF Theme: A Sustainable Community andUrban Living SPD UL2. The eagerness to flood South Bristol with PBSAs is not reflectedin the infrastructure nor suitability of the Whitehouse St location. There is also evidencethat PBSAs are not representing sufficient value for money for students and theirfamilies, and so are not achieving full occupation. The Build to Rent blocks of thisproposal could prove far more economically appealing to students, creating an evendenser student community than indicated, that will not be contributing to localcharacter, community or city taxes. The proposed PBSA amount in the area has alreadyexceeded local quotas and there is evidence that PBSA demand may be decreasing withfewer international students looking to the UK for places, as it becomes increasinglyfinancially challenging and unwelcoming. The over commitment and reliance upon

3

PBSAs is a short-term and, debatably, unrobust approach to tackling the wider housingissues in Bristol with the premise that HMOs will be freed up due to more studentstaking advantage of PBSAs. These builds do not offer any flexibility for alternative useand would not be suitable for conversion to regular residential dwellings if the marketwere to implode (or another pandemic remove need completely) and so seems like avery poor use of valuable land and resource.

4. Lack of future proofing for local services and amenity strain – The proposal includesno confirmed contributions for school or healthcare provision, despite the expectedpopulation increase. This fails to satisfy Policy BCS12 (Community Facilities) found inthe Bristol Core Strategy. The build itself will have considerable impact upon the localeducational institutions (Oasis Academy, LPW, St Mary Redcliffe Primary) jeopardisingtheir ability to deliver their provision. The lack of acknowledgment of the educationalfacilities that this development will overshadow, appears to be a concerted effort tominimise their importance in the context of this development.

5. Obstruction of Key Views – The massing of the development will interrupt existingviews from Victoria Park and obstruct citywide sightlines. WSRF 5.4 and the UrbanLiving SPD Part 3 require key views to be protected, especially in tall building proposals.The impact on views to the north, while stating that site lines to key landmarks arepreserved, does not take into account the overall impact of taking out the foregroundview from the elevated positions in Victoria Park, a view that was deemed beneficialfrom the time the land was gifted to the people of south Bristol, in the late 1800’s, fortheir health and wellbeing. This massing will equally impede visibility of the park to thesouth, eliminating a valuable green vista that is becoming increasingly rare in the city.

6. Visual Harm to Local Character – The development’s massing is discordant with thetraditional scale and form of neighbouring streets, particularly the Grade II listedGeorgian houses of York Road (that this development would become the back drop for)and the Victorian terraced housing of Southville and Bedminster. The dominance ofBlocks C and D undermines the local residential character, in breach of Urban LivingSPD DC3 and WSRF 5.3. It is felt that the Design and Access Statement underplays theimpact on York Road and the New Cut of this development and upon the wider contextof the Conservation Area.

7. Impact upon the Heritage Asset of Victoria Park – The proposal’s juxtaposition withthe Local Historic Park & Garden (ie green space of Victoria Park), fails to mitigate theimpact that this massing will have upon the heritage asset and the experience of thepark for all users, not only from the northern aspect but from all compass points. Thedevelopment will tower over this precious amenity and degrade the experience of usingthat space, particularly around the interpretation board east of St Mary Redcliffe Primaryschool, and in the open areas to the eastern border of the park. This conflicts with localplan policy BCS22. Victoria Park is also a designated Urban Dark Sky area and thisproposal makes no reference to ensuring that light pollution is minimised (particularlyfrom the masses of Blocks C and D), both for the protection of wildlife and on theexisting surrounding residences.

4

8. Environmental Impact – While the assessment determines that there is no negativeimpact upon the local environment, it fails to acknowledge the adjacency to VictoriaPark and established populations of birds, mammals and established woodland(including the Sycamore that will be the primary, if inadequate, screen for Block D) . Therailway and northern edge of the park is a proven route for local and rare bat populations(reference BS3 Bat Audit 2024), as well as many nesting birds. Disruption from thebuild, light pollution and subsequent human impact could severely damage, irreparably,these precious aspects of diminishing urban wildlife.

9. Insufficient Integration with Victoria Park – Although adjacent to Victoria Park, thescheme does not create direct green corridors or sightlines. WSRF 5.6 calls formeaningful integration with existing green infrastructure, which is absent here.

10. Daylight and Sunlight Deficiencies – The application references BRE standards yetseeks flexibility due to its urban location. However, many proposed rooms and amenityareas fall below acceptable daylight targets, compromising liveability and contraveningSPD DC1 (see Appendix B). It also has not made reference to impact upon futureadjoining sites to the north, east and west: it’s proximity to other sites, yet to bedeveloped to the north will, in this planning iteration, seriously impact the daylight andsunlight of these future sites, and, hence, their viability.

It is also believed that insufficient Autumn/Winter/Spring shadowing studies have beenmade for the properties to the north on York Road, some gardens of which are less than100m from the tallest block (D).

11. Noise Impact Assessment – this document appears to present very limited timeframesof assessment upon future residents, which doesn’t fully account for the considerablenoise from the railway (which operates 24hrs) or an increase in services (which youmight assume would transpire with the increase in local residents and need). The areaof track directly under the development is both a staging post for trains entering TempleMeads and a route for freight trains in the night. According to the NIA there will be manydwellings facing south in the development that would experience noise levels above theacceptable parameters for residential properties. These properties, being south facingand receiving the full impact of the midday sun, will then also be unable to openwindows for fresh air exchange/cooling purposes. This seems at odds with the SPD’sparameters for sustainability and could be a particular issue with climate changeimpact and increasingly hot seasons, putting reliance upon effectiveness of internalcooling systems. You would expect there to be some accounting for this in theorientation of the building and accommodations made for shading of these dwellings.

There is also concern that the noise impact of reverberation from the completeddevelopment from passing trains has not been assessed and will negatively affect thewildlife in the park, enjoyment of the tranquillity of the park, as well as St Mary RedcliffePrimary School. Residents around Bedminster Green have reported that this is now anissue with the developments as noise bounces off the large fascias back onto theproperties that are overlooked. Increase in this type of urban noise was not anticipatedas being one of the ongoing issues post build.

5

12. Underwhelming Public Realm Provision – While public spaces are proposed, they areeither internalised or overshadowed, lacking quality or usability. The Urban Living SPD(Checklist 2.3) and WSRF 5.6 call for accessible, sunlit and safe open spaces—standards this proposal does not meet. The proposed play area will risk not beingallocated in time for residents (due to the power source requirements) and this posesconcerns for the delivery of this as it may then be subject to perceived need at a laterpoint – a chicken and egg scenario where families will not be attracted to thedevelopment due to lack of appropriate outside space for children.

13. Unrealistic Transport Provisions – The proposal lacks a detailed transport impactassessment and modal shift strategy, raising serious questions about congestion and airquality. This fails WSRF 5.2 and SPD Q2.1–2.4 on sustainable transport planning. Thedistances to, and available services from, local transport points (Bedminster Station,Redcliffe Hill Bus Stops, Temple Meads) are at the limits of SPD recommendation aswell as being infrequent or indirect services to student hubs across the city. The carfree development aspect does not respect the fact that, in spite of cycle storageprovision that, in a city which has considerable annual rain fall, that there will be manymonths of the year when cycling is neither appealing, practical, nor safe for manypeople, especially young families. There is also no reference to electric charging points,car pool locations, city bikes or public scooter areas etc which would help to make a lowcar development more reasonable.

14. Parking Overspill Risk – The limited parking proposed, with no on-street controlmeasures, will displace cars into neighbouring streets. WSRF 5.2 and BCS10 of theLocal Plan emphasise the need to avoid localised transport impacts. With 830+dwellings (with the potential for more than double that in adult headcount alone) thereneeds to be a more realistic approach to the fact that car ownership is still a practicalityfor many people living in Bristol, especially for families. Other developments havesuccessfully incorporated underground parking (General Hospital, Bedminster Bridgeflats) but the recent ‘car free’ developments have only succeeded in putting pressure onexisting parking in neighbouring areas which are unprotected by RPZs. The effect ofthese car free developments is to make it increasingly difficult for families - and thosewho rely upon cars for work purposes - to live in the city. The “15 Minute City” is not areality for most living in South Bristol, especially as industry and blue colour jobs areincreasingly pushed away from the centre and environs. The working classes can nolonger, practically inhabit the city when places of work are being pushed further away,with travelling times via public transport, adding undue immediate cost.

15. Cycling and Waste Storage Shortcomings – Refuse and cycle storage solutions areinconsistently presented and in some areas poorly located or inaccessible. Thisconflicts with SPD Q2.6 and WSRF 5.2 which to prioritise active transport and efficienturban services. It is unclear whether the waste facilities in Block D (in the basement)are either sufficient, or practical for that density, and there are no apparent sharedlaundry facilities, adding to negative environmental load of the development as a wholeand impracticality when it comes to washing and drying clothing. The studio layouts areunclear as to whether they provide washing facilities for each individual unit or cluster –surely an environmental and ecological consideration of some importance

6

16. Low Affordable Housing Offer –The proposed 20% affordable provision falls short ofthe city-wide policy target (30–40%) and is not sufficiently justified. WSRF allowsreduced provision in early phases only when supported by a clear viability case, which isabsent here. For a high density development to still be unable to deliver the city’s target,displays a level of greed or unsustainability that surely needs to be questioned. The lackof integration of the Affordable Housing contribution with the rest of the site, and thefact that there is no designated provider mentioned in the application, also indicatesthat this is not a proposal which yet has solid foundations.

17. Lack of Family Housing – The unit mix is skewed towards smaller apartments andstudios, failing to address Bristol’s need for family homes in central areas. Thisundermines SPD DC1, BCS18 and WSRF objectives to create a family-friendly,inclusive neighbourhood. Without proper provision for families this will not be a mixeddevelopment. There is also no minimal accommodation of private open space(recommended at 5sqm in the SPD Appendix A))

18. Monotonous Architectural Expression – Repetitive massing and bland materialityweaken the architectural identity of the site. SPD DC3 and WSRF 5.3 seek distinctive,locally informed design responses—criteria the proposal fails to meet. The majority ofthe dwellings are single aspect residences (which goes against SPD Q2.8) with minimalbalcony provision. The bland facades do not complement the area when at such a scaleand, quite frankly, will be an eyesore for many decades to come.

19. Wind Microclimate Risks – The wind assessment provided will not take intoconsideration the addition of more developments to the north and west of this site. Withthe prevailing wind coming from the south there is a very real risk that this developmentwill create, noisy and unpleasant wind tunnels, like those experienced behind TempleMeads. SPD Part 3 and WSRF 5.4 require demonstration that such issues areaddressed, particularly in public spaces, and, on review of the available evidence do nothave confidence that this has been investigated in sufficient detail

20. Overshadowing of Neighbours to the North of the Development – The applicantprovides no verified analysis of impacts on existing residential properties on York Roador on St Luke’s Road. This is contrary to BRE best practice and WSRF 5.4 principles.These properties were also not on the notification list, in spite of being the largest andmost immediate concentration of potentially affected residences adjacent to thisproposed development.

21. Neglect of Local Heritage Setting – The setting of nearby historic streets and views isinsufficiently assessed. SPD Part 3 and WSRF 5.3 require heritage context to informproposals. While the TVIAs have chosen certain, potentially more favourable, visuals,there are others which have not been offered (eg. impact on the Totterdownescarpment/Pylle Hill, impact on the southern section of Victoria Park, impact upon StMary Redcliffe Primary School, impact upon the southern aspect of York Roadproperties and those to the east overlooking St Lukes’s Road)

22. Vague Commercial Use Strategy –Commercial elements are not clearly defined by useclass, size or fit-out, risking vacancies. This contradicts WSRF 5.5, which promotes

7

integrated, vibrant employment space. Without parking, the units risk not attractingvisitors from a wider area, nor will be appealing to businesses that require some form ofvehicular access and parking to allow them to function. Currently there are businessesacross the trading estate and to the west of Whiethouse St itself, whose workers andcustomers, use the area to park (also visitors to the various schools, gym, car servicingetc). While the vision may erase all of these elements from the longer term plans, in theshort to medium term, unless accommodation is made for existing accessrequirements, the development will only be contributing negatively to the existingcommunity.

23. Inadequate Response to Public Consultation –Engagement findings are listed but notdemonstrably integrated into the scheme. WSRF mandates community involvementthat meaningfully informs design. This application disregards all of the extensivefeedback that was gathered (and financed) under the direction of BCC. If thisdevelopment is approved it will make an absolute mockery of the consultation processand fundamentally undermine local trust in subsequent attempts to appeaseopposition to these developments being strong armed into the community.

ConclusionThis application, in its current form, represents an unsustainable, inappropriate andinadequately justified intervention in a sensitive urban setting. We therefore urge Bristol CityCouncil to refuse planning permission and request a revised proposal that better aligns with theUrban Living SPD, Bristol Local Plan, and the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework. Thepeople of south Bristol are sick and tired of being asked to accommodate insensitive planscreated by companies that have no interest in the city, apart from for personal financial gain andpotentially dubious investment purposes.

Regards,

Looks absolutely awful, stop building monstrosities over our lovely city

I strongly object to a 19 storey building, especially for student accommodation ratherthan providing any affordable housing for the community. The consultation documentsstate 10 storeys would be the maximum considered, and then in a very specific place tominimise impact to skyline, green space and the surrounding area. 19 storeys would beinappropriate.

I am especially concerned about daylight/shading from such a tall structure. We live in a where the only real light is from the south towards the park. I

think many of the and in the Bedminster conservationarea would never get any proper light again. I was already worried about a 10 storeybuilding as the site identified would be directly south of our home. Now it could bedouble the size and I won't even have the comfort that it will provide any much neededdecent and affordable housing to the community.

I am less worried but still concerned about increased traffic and parking issues.Students often bring cars, sometimes several per flat/dwelling! Such a big block will adda lot of pressure to an already stretched area.

I think with Victoria park and the Bedminster conservation area this is the wrong placefor such a tall structure and the maximum size of 10 storeys laid out in the consultationdocuments should be honoured. This should prioritise families and have the maximumpossible number of affordable units. If student accommodation is genuinely needed inthis area it should be more modestly sized to minimise impact to the community.

This is being ignored and the scale of the development does not respect the planningframework or character of the local area.

As a minimum, the unacceptably high tower block should be removed from the proposaland the heights of the lower buildings should be reduced by two stories.

The planning authority needs to act to protect the special amenity value and views fromVictoria park, ensure the development is appropriate and fits in with the local area, andpreserves the character of the area for all.

Best regards,

Bristol is building far too many high rises. No more please. They say a percentage isaffordable housing but in reality it's not. What young person can afford shared ownership wherethey are struggling to find the money to pay the mortgage for their part and then on top have topay rent on the other part plus service charges. This is not affordable housing it's debt for life. Ifyou can really make true affordable housing I'm for the building but please don't make it a highrise.

The building is too high, and ruins the scenic view from Victoria park. Please make itsmaller or do not build it all together. Our scenic views bring charm to the city and some need tobe protected. London maintain sightlines of key landmarks from certain views, we should be doingthe same in Bristol. Either build something less tall, or move such a development to a more centralarea.

Light pollutionOvercrowding no car development already!

At it's current height, it blocks very iconic views of Bristol from Victoria Park. Thereneeds to be more housing for local people and not just student let's where the rents go to privatehands.

This would mean overcrowding in the area, it's already hard enough to find parking.This would ruin the view from the park in which at the minute we have lovely views across the city.We have already had student accommodation built near the park, we don't need anymore. This isa suburban area for families

I object due to the height of the development, the density, and the impact on the localservices.

The proposed development is incredibly unsightly and would really negatively impactwhat is a beautiful nature spot in Bristol. It would cause traffic and parking issues and potentiallynoise issues with the student population.

The buildings, especially the taller one look very out of character with the area. Not onlydo they spoil the wonderful view from Victoria Park but the traffic and air pollution from this will behorrific.I understand there is a need for housing in Bristol but building tall flats is not the answer. I'vespoken to many people within the area who also agree. Tall buildings like this will negativelychange the personality of the local area by becoming an eyesore and the influx of people trying toenjoy the green spaces within the area.

South Bristol environment and amenities is already overwhemed with studentaccommodation. Transport links and utilities cannot sustain ir accommodate further populationincrease. It is already very congested with traffic from additional motorists. The skyline is alsobeing destroyed by high rise buildings - this plan would not be allowed in Clifton so why doesBedminster have to accept these unwanted plans? Student accommodation in Bristol outstrips thenumber of students requiring such.

Having lived in the area for 24 years, are you absolutely mental building? Such an uglybuilding and as high as it's proposed are out of your tiny minds and you clearly don't live in thearea if you think this is a good idea.

You're going to ruin such a beautiful area building such a modern ugly construction around abeautiful Victorian neighbourhood. It's clear that whoever is propose this has no brains and noconsideration for the people of the area. It's going to cut out views there's enough congestion inthe area now with traffic and this is only going to create more havoc for the amount of people thatwould be living in such an ugly tower block.

The horrendous proposed building is obscuring view over Bristol from Victoria Park, itlooks awful and does not fit in with other buildings and surroundings of Bedminster.

Overwhelmed with blocks of flats here already. No parking, roads are a mess, no crucialadditional infrastructure like GPs (just waited weeks here on 'urgent' cancer pathway for checks)and the community needs affordable family housing. Nothing at all against students but we havehuge student blocks already. Low rise housing for families and young people trying to get on thehousing ladder is so needed.

This 19 storey tower will have an irreversible, detrimental impact on our precious sharesgreen space and cause overcrowding and congestion.

This ugly building is not in keeping with the area at all and will forever change the viewand and skyline. The high density living will create increasing pressure on an area that is alreadystruggling to cope with traffic, noise and parking, but my primary objection is the cost of space, skyand and view that is so important to the quality of life of current residents of the city . We mustdefend our right to some space to look up at that is not crowded with stuff, and this feels like itcould be the gateway to more and more building to the long term detriment to all who live andwork here. We need a better solution than just taking more from what is already limited.

Totterdown is too small for all of these developments and Victoria Park view is prettymuch a tourist attraction.

Impacts on green space and adds to the overcowding of the area. This is alsounbalanced development!

With the history of poor planning decisions which have affected Totterdown residents, Iurge the committee to retain some sensitivity and reject what will be a 'monstrous carbuncle' onour much needed horizon. Not to mention the strain on local infrastructure which this developmentwill cause.

I live near Victoria Park and feel strongly that this proposed building would have anegative impact on my and my neighbours' enjoyment of Victoria Park.

I can see only problems, and no benefit, to those of us already living in the area. It willincrease light pollution and traffic and reduce available parking on the surrounding streets. Thefeedback from the consultation has been ignored, so I can't support this development.

My wellbeing will be effected by this highrise block. I do not have a garden and the parkis hugely valuable to be in. The environmental impact on wildlife and air quality and temperaturewill be effective and be detrimental to the One City Plan and Climate targets, from build to overcrowding the area. Taking light from nearby trees. We need housing for residents not morestudents. I love learning and it is important to have students all over the UK but it is known that theuniversity is a big business. We would not let a Primark be built here. The consultation process Iwent to was a sham. They said there would be less stories.

The height,

This building would affect the area in many ways. More traffic,which is alreadyhorrendous because of one way systems and clean air zones in turn creates more pollution andputs more strain on local services.

It would also totally change the view from the park that so many people enjoy.

Why does student accommodation have to be built here when the university is a good 4 milesaway! I object.

The height, design of the buildings is out of character and will be a sore thumb in thearea. We have so many new student buildings but number of them is halved based on the latestimmigration report after visa restrictions were tightened. These building will not bring any value tothe neighborhood but traffic, infrastructure around gp and schools will suffer. Loss of view and lossof light will affect tourists and local visitors of the park which are very many. There are manycommunity group that use Victoria park and this buildings will ruin the character of the parkbecause even in it's statement about it it says that it offers a city views on one of the sides. Thereis no place like Victoria park that have same view point where you can see all the way to thesuspension bridge which is another big landmark of Bristol. I always try to bring my friends to seeit when they visit it and on the baloon festival the views are great. There is already bigdevelopment close to Victoria park, what would be the point of completely ruining most populartotterdown and one of the most popular bedminster green spaces??? Also most of the totterdownarea doesn't have gardens so we all rely on victoria park for the outdoors spaces, lots of peoplerun, have a picnic, play with kids as we have no other options for it. These buildings will affect somany in totterdown and neighbourhood areas. Local businesses will be also affected becausepeople usually would go through the park and have a pint or food after hanging out in the park.This view is the biggest asset of victoria park and we could potentially lose lots of people coming.That particular spot is so popular with people that I usually can't find a place to sit on that slope asit's also a suntrap in the winter and only nice place to sit after work when it's cold

I believe that this development would lead to an imbalance in the local are and reduceopportunities for local housing developments for families and residents who would contribute tothe community within the area. This seems revenue driven rather than considering localinfrastructure and sustainable community development.

I strongly object to this application.As a local resident, my key concerns are as follows:- The development is of an excessive height and scale out of character with the area. Theproposed development would negatively affect townscape views, especially those from the locallycherished Victoria Park.- The proposed building heights, particularly Block D (18 storeys) (reduced from an initial 19), andparts of Block C (reaching 14 storeys) are considerably ill-proportioned. The proposeddevelopment does not fit with the intended character for this part of Bedminster.- The applicant references the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF), the WSRFdefines "contextual tall buildings" in the eastern part of the site as "30m or higher (the equivalentof around 10 storeys)". The proposed development significantly exceeds 10 storeys, creating anoverbearing impact.- The community consultation feedback confirms that building heights were a primary concern,with some describing the effect as creating a 'canyon'.- The proposed development is of a very high density (530 dwellings/hectare). This placesexcessive pressure on local services and infrastructure.I acknowledge there is a genuine need for regeneration, however the proposed development,particularly its inappropriate scale and density, raises serious concerns regarding its compatibilitywith local planning guidance. The issues highlighted above, drawn from the application documentsand community feedback, indicate fundamental conflicts and potential negative consequences thathave not been adequately addressed or mitigated in the current proposal.I urge Bristol City Council to refuse this planning application or require that it submits to significant

change, secured via planning conditions or obligations. Before considering any approval, theremust be genuine alignment with the adopted planning framework that addresses the significantconcerns of the local community.

This is far too tall compared to the other buildings in this area. The infrastructure aroundthe area is already inadequate. This will increase traffic & pollution and reduce wellbeing ofresidents in an area where people should be able to enjoy the open spaces and so close to aprimary school too. The view from central Bristol of the iconic houses of Totterdown will beobstructed too by a very bland building that is completely out of character for the area. Yes thisarea needs improvements but why so tall? It should be kept at the same height as the buildings onYork Rd not introduce imposing claustrophobic buildings which ruin an area. Please take a look atwhat has happened to the buildings on the A4 at Totterdown Bridge and learn from that. And buildsomething sympathetic to Bristol. Come on Green Party please!

The size of this development is absolutely inappropriate for the location. It is far farlarger than anything else in the city, dominating the skyline from all directions. A development ofthis size is also not well served for infrastructure such as GPs, dentists, schools.

I usually am in support of local developments but the scale of this one is totally unacceptable anddetrimental to the area.

Hi, I am a local neighbour to Princess Street.I would like to put my objection in reference to the following issues:The height of the 19 story building is completely unacceptable in this location. Not only does itaffect all housing on York Rd, the detrimental effect to Victoria Park is too great. We as a familyuse Victoria Park regularly, and it is one of the only true green spaces to remove yourself from thisvibrant/noisy/dirty city and enjoy the green space & views of Bristol. Why would anyone want topart such a monstrosity of a building so close to this green space?!Bristol South is already seeing fundamental changes, more student tall buildings, being built in StPhilips, that is understandable with its proximity to the new University and the recent studentblocks on Whitehouse Street in Bedminster Green. We do not need to be overrun with morestudent accommodation in this area. Why can't we not build affordable family homes, which aredrastically needed in this city?I hope as a young person, Bristol City Council, you will adhere to all the objections here and listenclosely to the local community.

The Bedminster Green / Whitehouse Lane is a once in lifetime opportunity to regenerateand improve this area for everyone. I understand to make this work, not everyone will be happywith all the developments and some compromises will need to be made.

The development in question however is completely out of keeping in terms of scale. As therender show the height and the mass of the building or completely disproportionate with thesurrounding area.

I feel the developer has shown minimal regard for the local area / community and the negativeeffect the building will have on them

I object to the proposed 19-storey development adjacent to Victoria Park for thefollowing reasons:

**Excessive Height and Visual Harm**A tower of this scale would dominate the skyline, particularly when viewed from Victoria Park. It issignificantly taller than any neighbouring buildings and would result in a harsh visual intrusion. Theheight is inappropriate for this location and entirely out of keeping with the character of the area.The design, bulk, and appearance are unsympathetic to the architectural language of thesurrounding neighbourhood.

**Overdevelopment and Unsuitable Density**This proposal, with its very high dwelling count, represents overdevelopment. Concentrating somany units in a confined footprint places undue strain on local infrastructure and services. Thedensity far exceeds what is appropriate for this part of South Bristol and appears to prioritise unitnumbers over liveability and community integration.

**Traffic and Parking Issues**Although described as "car-free", this scheme is unrealistic. Residents and visitors will inevitablyrequire parking, and the 16 disabled bays are wholly inadequate for a population of this size. Thelikely result is overflow parking in nearby streets and increased congestion, particularlyproblematic around school and rush hours. This area already experiences traffic pressure, and theproposal does little to mitigate its impact on the road network.

**Strain on Services**Health services-including GPs, dentists, and pharmacies-are already under considerable pressurelocally. Introducing over 1,400 new residents will worsen this strain. The inclusion of commercialunits offers no guarantee of service provision without firm, enforceable commitments.

**Community Consultation Ignored**This application disregards feedback from the Whitehouse Street consultation, which emphasisedthe importance of local voices and context-sensitive development. Advancing this proposal despiteclear opposition undermines public confidence and democratic planning processes.

Given these concerns, I urge the Council to reject this application and call for a more modest,appropriately scaled development that aligns with the needs and character of the local community.

Good regeneration of site, providing much needed housing, and upgrade to the visitingtransport infrastructure

Page 2 of 7

1.0 - Height It is noted on the framework that the site has potential for a ‘Contextual tall building’. The immediate existing context is for low level masonry buildings as terraced houses or masonry (brick) industrial units with detailing around doors and windows, and visually apparent copings atop parapets. There are some lightweight steel buildings of 2-3 storeys nearby as well. When the site is viewed from the north across the river a Georgian terrace with stone fronts presents a restrained face, the back of this terrace is visible as series of painted, rendered backs. To the south Victoria Park is a large green space. The proposed collection of buildings does not respond in any way to the above context and does not represent an attempt to transition from that context to the tall brick buildings with narrow slit windows. It is not an example of the high-quality design required by the framework. 1.1 The framework notes that as development gets taller it is expected to have a lower plot coverage. In this particular scheme the blocks are tightly spaced and much of the ground at the east side is used for parking around the student block. We believe this is not in accordance with the framework and that more of the site area should be given to open space. 1.2 The framework is quite clear that development is expected to make a positive contribution to mid-range long range and intermediate views but the Townscape Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) makes it clear that this is not happening. There will undoubtedly be a detrimental impact on the setting of Victoria Park.

• The tallest parts of the scheme are wildly out of context for the development, bearing no relation to the immediate context, overshadowing the nearby green space and other future development. This is very clear in the views taken from Bedminster Station and the play area at the foot of Victoria Park (St Luke’s Road). Both show a towering object that looms over the park and is much too tall for the context, dwarfing those features that the local plan and Whitehouse Street Framework have highlighted as important features. The group believes that as the building has been shown to be so visible across the park it is too dominant, and the impact is harmful

• Even the lower buildings are much taller than the existing context, the height of Block C does not seem to be in keeping with the height intentions of the framework, being above the viewpoint on Victoria Park.

• It is very disappointing to see how much the towers impinge on views from key points in the local area and beyond:

o From the viewpoint on Victoria Park the development clearly a\ects the appearance of key landscape features such as St Mary Redcli\e church and

Page 3 of 7

conceals the Georgian terrace along York Road; it brackets o\ the eastern side of the vista which has a negative e\ect on the key view from Victoria Park - a historic view specifically noted on the Know Your Place website. This is unacceptable.

o The Redcli\e flats are also identified as a key landmark. They too are obscured by the building.

o The view from Victoria Grove demonstrates that the building significantly damages the view from the north to Victoria Park, contravening not only the framework but also the SPD on Urban Living which requires tall buildings not to mask topography, this view shows that the building clearly does this.

o The long-distance views from Park Street and Perret’s Park show breaches of skyline in a way that highlights the extraordinary mass of the building, combined with the banal and massive masonry appearance of the building. This would not an attractive additional to any skyline contravening the framework and as noted the SPD on Urban Living.

• Wind modelling shows key public space asked for in the framework may not be suitable for seated activities.

• The Visual permeability to Victoria park is significantly harmed. This is against the Whitehouse Street Framework which says that “development is expected to make a positive contribution to mid-range long range and intermediate views” as noted above, the TVIA makes it clear this is not happening.

2.0 - ELect on wildlife at night We are concerned by the building’s proximity to the park and railway line to the south. Bats and other wildlife are known to use the railway line as a commuter route and as a feeding ground at night and there seems to be little consideration for how lit windows on the southern side will impact these areas at night. There is no proposal in the documents to limit this. 3.0 - Visual appearance The SPD on urban living requires all developments to be of exemplary design. The group does not feel this is reflected for the following reasons:

• Many of the units do not have openable windows, restricting occupants’ choice. Perhaps alterations to the design could be made to avoid this and avoid reliance on mechanical ventilation which will incur a cost to the occupant to run.

• The nature of the design will overshadow future development to the north far more significantly that any other development that is to be found on the site currently and will significantly impact the design of those blocks, impairing their amenity

Page 4 of 7

• It is not clear why those materials have been selected for the finish of the building. In form and texture these do not really speak to the local context and across all the building blend together to form a single block from certain angles.

• These buildings do not seem to have a top middle or bottom and do not respond to the SPD on Urban Living.

• The choice of façade material is an unrelieved brick. Visually this is creating a wall with many narrow slits that repeat across the façade.

In terms of visual appeal this is not a building that demonstrates exemplary design but promotes a banal, dull, appearance whose choice of material speaks of economy and is not an example of high-quality design that a tall visually apparent building in this context should be demonstrating. 4.0 - Outdoor amenity space There appears to be very little private outside amenity space for students and it is not entirely clear how much (or how little) there is. It appears from the roof plan that there will be a total of 270 square metres for all 400 students, whereas the landscape drawings seem to give a total of approximately 144 square metres. We would welcome a clarification of this apparent discrepancy but surely in either case, the space is not enough. A much more modest building would suit such a level of amenity space if this is all the site will support.

5.0 - Indoor amenity space Under the framework, development is not to be undertaken to create a residential district, but a mixed use one allowing for replacement jobs for those which will be lost in demolition. This development has some commercial space at ground level but nothing on any floor above this. There is some amenity space at ground level in block C, though there is a note implying some of this could become residential or commercial space instead. For this development to live up to the aims of the framework it needs to be clear how much amenity and how much commercial space is being provided. That this development contains a bias towards residential units was expected, but it cannot be allowed to set a precedent for residential development which will o\er no economic re-development for the area. Firm areas should be in place prior to a decision being made. 6.0 - Local facilities The documentation notes that they understand there is NHS provision for 10,000+ more people in the local area. Anecdotally the group hears on a number of residents struggling to access dental and GP services. Can this be clarified as to where and by whom these services are being provided? 7.0 - Privacy All the apartments appear to have floor to ceiling glazing. This is not the best choice of

Page 5 of 7

facades for preserving individual privacy and it may lead to curtains or blinds being left closed during the day with a consequent costly increase in the use of artificial lighting.

8.0 - Quality of housing 8.1 Since Purpose Built Student Accommodation was not included in the Whitehouse Street Regeneration framework, a justification should be provided as to how it furthers the aims of ‘supporting the existing businesses, encouraging new enterprise within the area' which was the presented feedback from the local population. Furthermore, the proposal for 400 student bedspaces, when considered alongside other already approved PBSAs, pushes the number above the local plan limit for Central Bedminster (of which this location is a part) and could set a precedent for future disregard of the framework. 8.2 We note a high number of single aspect north facing apartments across the development, accessed by long narrow unlit corridors, which not only o\er an unappealing environment but can provide areas for anti-social behaviour. Such designs go against the cluster requirements which the SPD on Urban Living recommends creating a cohesive neighbourhood. There is no provision in the proposals to combat the possible negative outcomes. 8.3 It is noted that all the a\ordable housing is to be located in block A – but no firm number has been declared only a target that is sought – not guaranteed. Should this application be approved in some form, we would hope that a number and target in accordance with planning policy, are agreed ahead of this. 9.0 - Sustainability 9.1 The framework notes that developments should acknowledge the climate emergency declaration and have methods to adapt to climate change. This is broadly supported by the forthcoming local plan with particular relevance to overheating. It is noted that the design of the blocks does not include any form of external shading and by 2050 all apartments will need MVHR to control temperature.

• To avoid overheating by 2080, block D will require a re-fit, which begs the question how will that take place if measures to avoid it cannot be introduced now? To limit embodied carbon we should not be lining up works to be changed in the future if as a society we build new construction it should be fit for purpose to reflect a longer period of usefulness than 55 years.

9.2 As noted previously most of the accommodation seems to have tall windows – these typically increase the risk of overheating because of the lower windowsill level. A redesign is needed to avoid this.

Page 6 of 7

9.3 If overheating needs to be reduced using electrical or mechanical input, running costs may well rise, especially concerning, perhaps, for those in a\ordable units. The forthcoming local plan suggests that cool spaces be designed into a building available for the occupants if they need a refuge from overheating. Is that being considered? 10.0 - Public Realm 10.1 Princess Street and its junction with Whitehouse Street form a very important part of the Whitehouse Street Framework. It is vital that any public realm works maintain a welcoming street scene that is safe to use at all times. It is not clear if this development will do so in its current form. 10.2 The framework also says that developments are required to preserve and enhance the special character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting. Although outside the conservation area the site is close to it and forms an important part of the backdrop to the historic frontage on York Road and Victoria Park (itself listed as a monument) behind. This is in e\ect a key site bridging these two important pieces of di\ering character and its presence on the public realm responds to neither of these. We suggest something more in keeping with the scale envisaged in the framework, with a relationship to the rhythm and unit size of the available historic context would have ore chance of achieving this. In its current form it does not accord with the framework, or the guidance in the SPD on urban living. 10.3 We note the guidance in the Whitehouse Street framework has not been followed with regard to the height to width ratio noted in the document, section 5.4:

• A typical height to width (h:w) ratio of around 1:1 to 1:1.5 will be appropriate depending upon the context. This development at the lower blocks appears to be delivering around 1.5:1 at the lower blocks (A, B and first part of C) increasing to 3:1 at the taller part of block C and nearer 4:1 at block D.

This will likely lead to an overshadowed part of the public realm and the impact in terms of natural light will lead to a dark and uninviting street, falling short of the aims of the regeneration project. 10.4 Although a wind study has been carried out, we are concerned that the modelling does not reflect any proposed development upon the other side of the street. If this development occurs and has a similar flat façade to this development the group was especially concerned that this would become a wind tunnel. Despite a framework with design heights being available for use, this development has not considered them within its design, which is far from exemplary and shows little consideration for the existing residents

Page 7 of 7

and workers.

Despite it being readily apparent from the framework and the fact that this is a development area, the scheme has little in the way of modelling or canopy design to prepare for this and the design should be modified.

11.0 Vehicle parking 11.1 The on-site parking total is only for 16 parking spaces, which will be available to blue badge holders only, there is to be no parking for residents with local resident parking scheme arrangements in limbo it is not clear how appealing this will make the development for families, who will have to compete with businesses for the available street parking. The residents of Windmill Hill and Totterdown know the dangers of overcrowded street parking, leading to di\iculties such as:

• Inability to reach accessible bays, • Access for emergency vehicles, • Access for refuse lorries, • Issues for pedestrian safety and other visibility issues, • Pavement climbing where cars make pavements di\icult to use for people in

mobility vehicles, wheelchairs or with pushchairs. 11.2 We also note that other student developments in the area have included specific pull in areas o\ the highway for vehicles to pull in and unload without creating congestion and contributing to the above issues, this does not seem to have been considered here 11.3 We would encourage a re-design with an approach that includes measures to avoid the above safety issues, family parking spaces (more in keeping with the aims of the framework), drop o\ points if student accommodation must be included, some kind of car sharing scheme. All of this would foster a better atmosphere for resident and pedestrians as well as vehicle owners.

I strongly object to this application for the following reasons:

- Height: The proposed 19+storey tower is entirely out of proportion to other buildings in the area.The excessive height will create an overbearing presence that is completely out of character withthe surrounding neighbourhood.

- Impact on Victoria Park: The proposed tower blocks will loom over the area and adversely impactthe skyline, particularly the iconic views north from Victoria Park. When the trees in Victoria Parkare not in leaf (usually for 5-6 months of the year), the tall tower in particular will be highly visible,not only from all over the park, but from the west side of Totterdown.

- Impact on wildlife: The corridor along the railway line is an essential urban wildlife corridor,especially for bats and foxes. Even though they usually move about at night, when there is lesshuman traffic, they will be badly affected by the lighting associated with this development.

- Density: This development is inappropriately high density for the area in which it will be located.Properly designed modern terraced housing could still provide high density but would be far moresuitable for housing families which is the real need in Bristol.

- Purpose built student accommodation (PBSA): This area deserves to develop as a newneighbourhood and a high concentration of transient students will have a negative impact onestablishing a mixed and lasting community. It is not clear how the PBSA tower will be repurposed

when the demand for UK university courses drops off - as it is predicted to in a few years' time,especially for foreign students.

- Community consultation: There was extensive community consultation for the Whitehouse Starea development which seems to have been ignored by the developer in their plans for PrincessSt.

I believe that the proposed student tower block is too high for the area and doesn't fit inwith the surroundings of a primarily low rise neighbourhood. This will negatively impact the feel ofthis part of Bristol - the streets in the surrounds of Victoria Park - which is primarily residential andsmall businesses. Even the recent large student accommodation development near East Street issmall scale in comparison. I think the size and scale of the student accommodation should berethought to complement the area, not stand out and block views from the park, which areimmensely enjoyed by the community, as wall as cause excessive light pollution.

Concerned about impact on area - traffic, skyline, strain on resources, not supportinglocal needs such as affordable family housing and ignoring local feedback from consultation

Strongly object to the view being spoiled by buildings that are totally out of characterwith the rest of the buildings surrounding it. Victoria park shouldn't be overlooked by blocks offlats.

Object on the grounds that the buildings especially the 19 storey one are too tall. Toomany flats blocking natural views. Not enough amenities for the amount of people.

Bristol City Council - Planning ServicesRequest to speak at planning meetings and inquiry

Dear Sir / Madam,

Location: Land South of Princess Street, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 4AG

Description: Phased demolition and redevelopment to provide residential dwellings (UseClass C3), student accommodation (Sui Generis), Commercial, Business and Servicefloorspace (Use Class E), amenity spaces, parking, servicing, landscaping, open space,play space, and associated works.

Application Ref: 25/11778/F

Status: Objection to planning application: 25/11778/F

Victoria Park Action Group (VPAG) is a voluntary association and registered CIC which activelypromotes the use, access and benefits of the park within the community and thus represents theinterest of the largest and most well-used green space (Victoria Park) in the immediate area of theplanning application. It was founded in 2002 and has been active in caring for and improving thepark ever since. The group assists in the improvement and maintenance of the infrastructure andrecreational facilities of the park by volunteering, fundraising, consultation and lobbying; it holds

several well-attended public events. VPAG promotes and is actively improving the habitat value ofthe park for plants and wildlife. It promotes public education regarding the history, trees, wildlifeand other aspects of the park and liaises with Bristol City Council on all matters concerning theupkeep and order of the park. Its current active committee numbers 25, with 300 subscribedFriends and newsletter subscribers, and 3,500 followers on social media. The Wildlife Group andCommunity Gardeners group have over 80 volunteers. We represent all park users, be they usingit in transit or as a destination. VPAG is the designated Community Connections liaisonorganisation for Windmill Hill and Victoria Park wards.

Topographically the park comprises the east end of Windmill Hill, with a steep north face risingsome 20 to 25m above Southville ground levels (9-10m OD) below the railway line, up to the ridgeof the hill, and there is a more leisurely southern slope on the south side of the ridge descendingover hundreds of metres to Hillside Avenue (15-20m OD). There is an OD of 34m on the tenniscourt, and opposite the application site, ridge levels are approximately 30m OD falling eastwards.The Hill gives way completely to a valley set below St Lukes Road at the east end of the park. Thelower north east corner leads onto St Luke's Road and is overlooked by the colourful terraces ofTotterdown, this is the walking and cycling exit route to Temple Meads and the business districtand features the Water Maze and adult gym. The park is popularly used for socialising, (the areaaround the 2015 Skyline Walk view board on the north slope is akin to College Green, particularlyso for The Balloon Festival). The park offers seasonal leisure and recreation activities: two footballareas, circulatory paths, trees, tennis courts, bowls club, cafe van, a skateboard park, andchildren's playgrounds. It is used by all ages, abilities and sections of the community near andfurther away.

Grounds of objection:

The Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (February 2023) has been disregarded. ThisFramework was adopted by BCC after public consultation; yet the clear public consultation findingthat people are opposed to very high buildings has been ignored particularly in relation to Block Dof the plans. The words Student or PBSA do not appear inWSRF which refers to permanent housing, workspaces and active travel. Although the heightdescriptor was changed between consultation and adoption, Plot 7 (Block D) was not expected toinclude anything above 10 storeys (as an exemption if screened by trees).

Policy BCS22 - Victoria Park, was established by Bristol City Council in the 1890's, and isdesignated as a Local Historic Park and Garden and, as such, is protected by Policy BCS22 of theBristol Development Framework Core Strategy, (paragraph 3.1.14 of the Townscape and VisualImpact Assessment (TVIA)). This protection has not been addressed or acted upon in theproposal. There is no mention of the designation of Victoria Park as a Local Historic Park andGarden in either the TVIA or the Heritage Statement, or an assessment of how the proposeddevelopment meets Policy BCS22. It is, in our view, essential that this development is not passedwithout an assessment and reappraisal.

Visual amenity 1 - The historic and panoramic views north from Victoria Park (the slope next to StMary Redcliffe Junior School) reveal an open panorama across the Bristol City skyline with itschurch towers and spires including the grade 1 listed St Mary Redcliffe church, as shown inFramework View 1 in Appendix B1 of the TVIA. The development proposed would range in heightfrom ground plus five storeys (Blocks A and B) to ground and thirteen storeys (Block C), to groundand eighteen storeys (Block D). The density and size of these proposed blocks are going to causeirreparable alteration to the scenic views north of the railway line from Victoria Park.

Visual amenity 2 - The mock-up image F1 in Appendix B2 of the TVIA shows the proposeddevelopment as it will look from Victoria Park. Verbal feedback locally given to VPAG is almostuniversally horrified! Even though the spire of St Mary Redcliffe is visible between block C andBlock D, it is ruined as a visual pinpoint feature. The view is entirely altered and this historic,landmark building is rendered irretrievably diminished in stature. The overbearing stature of thesurrounding development practically erases it in its historical importance. We object to this in thestrongest possible terms.

Visual amenity 3 - Currently there is a degree of tree canopy which is noted in the TVIA to givesome view-protection as a moderate adverse effect in Year 1 and Year 15 but if anything were tohappen to the current mature trees - the height and size of the Blocks proposed, so close to thePark, will alter the views drastically. Mention is made of tree screening, but the trees aredeciduous and all buildings will be in clear sight for five months of the year at least. Block D willnot be screened by the trees at any time of year being ten stories above the treeline. Block D willliterally tower above even the highest point of Victoria Park. It is not an overstatement to say thevisual amenity value will be completely altered forever.

The overbearing size of the buildings will change the whole setting of the Park from miles around.The development is relying on Victoria Park as the nearest amenity green space but the proposaldoes not address at all the effect the four towers (A,B,C,D) will have on the park or its users. Theproposal does not enhance in any way; it is a detriment.

Density - Tower D has a ground and mezzanine floor which indicates a double height floor, with afurther 18 floors atop. Therefore, in effect it is 20 storeys. This is entirely out of proportion to otherbuildings in the area, and out of line in height and architecturally with Bedminster ConservationArea. We are advised that the blue spill spider diagram early in TVIA indicates the tower is so tall itwill be visible at south entrances to the park on Hill Avenue, in particular when trees are not in leafOctober to April. This will have a profound scalar effect as the current view on the south slopesnorthward or north east is infinite grass and trees up to the clouds. We contend that the height ofBlock D does not conform to the National Planning Policy Framework and will be seeking adviceon this.

Urban Dark Sky Site 1 - Uncontrolled night light from the four blocks will certainly impact light at

night in Victoria Park which is a categorised Dark Sky Site. VPAG hosts Bristol AstronomicalSociety to bring telescopes for a well-attended Star Party. Dark sky sites are areas where the viewof the night sky is unobstructed by light pollution or other unnatural light sources. Dark sky sitescan be assigned special status, which can help to protect and preserve their unique nighttimeconditions. Not all dark sky sites are officially recognised, but community groups and astronomyorganisations work to highlight the benefits of keeping certain areas free of light pollution.Research suggests that light pollution can impact both wildlife and human health, not to mentionthe ability to see and photograph the wonders of the night sky. We are concerned that no weightor consideration has been given to the Urban Dark Sky Site categorisation of the park.

Urban Dark Sky Site 2 - The uncontrolled light at night will have a detrimental impact on wildlife inVictoria Park and the Malago green corridor. The street lights along the south side railway path aredesigned to be as low-level as possible and are set to switch off at 21:00 hours in order to assistthe habitat of the thriving bat colonies and assist other nocturnal wildlife such as owls andhedgehogs. The glare of the light development will undeniably affect this. It does not seem to havebeen given any weight in the proposal.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section S106 funding - The proposal does not mentionany intention to enhance Victoria Park specifically in financial terms despite a huge increase inlocal users that the development will bring. The funding is not ring-fenced to the local area and weare concerned that Victoria Park will have to compete in bids despite being the recipient ofpotentially hundreds (out of the 2K new residents of the plans) of new daily visitors.

Statement

VPAG recognises that provision of housing, including student accommodation, is consistent withthe objective of the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework and supports the principle of theprovision of a variety of housing and community facilities in the area. The Whitehouse StreetRegeneration Framework was adopted and should provide guiding principles - and yet seems tohave been disregarded.This does not bode well in our view. VPAG is unable to support thedevelopment 25/11778/F as proposed.

VPAG has read the submissions from Historic England, Avon Gardens Trust, Tresa, Bristol CivicSociety. We are in agreement with their submissions.

The very fact this proposal exists just seems ridiculous and so unfair to the localresidents. We have had several tower blocks built in the last couple of years, one of which on theBath road has been left abandoned, in our neighborhood with no additional services such as a GPsurgery or dentist. Parking has become almost impossible after 7pm already, with a handful of carparking spaces for this block, our already overflowing streets will have yet more cars on them. Ourviews from our area do not need to be blocked by this monstrosity of a building, no doubt designedby people who live no where near the area, it doesn't and won't affect them. Our neighborhoodhas a strong sense of community, we don't need a transient student population coming in and out,nothing is added to the area by this.Our area just cannot cope with even more people and cars. Please, take a look, we are full, I feellike we live in a car park, my drive to work takes twice the time it did five years ago, my husband isunable to get a local dentist, my daughter didn't get into our closest school and I have to wait overa month to see my GP. How can this, affecting our local population in such a huge way, haveanything but a negative impact on our neighbourhood and local community?People and community should always come before profit. This simply cannot be allowed.

Comments from Environment agency objecting due to lack of sufficient flood mitigation.The development will result in increased pressure on health system from population growth, so willneed investment in not just floor space but need more GP staff. The development will alsonegatively impact the view from the park which many local residents enjoy and improvesexperience of our local Green space.

Bristol Civic Society will be raising a longer objection document in the coming days butdue to the way this application has meshed with our monthly meeting cycles producing thefinished article has not proven possible on 4 June 2025.

This is a holding comment therefore

Grounds of objection will include

Breach of Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework 2023.Height Scale and MassingInappropriate location for a PBSA towerLayoutLack of internal daylight for residentsLayout and size of flats.Impression that this is a Co-Lining proposal by another nameOver-dense developmentLoss of existing employmentLack of expected TVIA's delivered so farUnder 40% of Victoria Park Vista View produced to scale in TVIAImpact on Amenity of Victoria Park as Local Historic Park and GardenNon Landmark ArchitectureHeritage Impact on Bedminster Conservation Area and other Heritage assets.

Overshading of Framework Plots and existing housing.Precedent setting for adjacent plotsTransport IssuesDesign and detailingBuilding uses .

We have also seen comments from Historic England and Avon Gardens Trust which we support.

I object to the proposed application due to it not complying with the Bristol City Council(BCC), Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework, March 2023, BCC.

The following items set out within Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework have notconsidered or addressed by the proposed application.

'Section 2.3, Existing land use'The proposed application does not seek to fully replace or better the existing '23,000 m2 ofemployment space' or the existing 'estimated 330-400 jobs' currently provided.

'Section 2.4 Heights and views'The proposed application will impede the only 'viewing corridor' from Victoria Park and will result inthe loss of views of existing 'locally listed buildings' and 'heritage asset landmarks'.

'Section 2.7 Transport & movement'The proposed application will temporarily (i.e. during construction) restrict and cause potentialdanger to the only existing 'Segregated / Protected cycle route' across the development, asignificant route for both commuters and school goers.

I don't think this plan is right for the area, and here's why:

1. The buildings are too tall and out of placeThe proposed buildings are far too high for the area. They block views from Victoria Park andmake the park feel overshadowed and closed in. They also spoil views of local landmarks like StMary Redcliffe Church and the Georgian terraces. The design doesn't fit in with the surroundingsat all.

2. It goes against the Whitehouse Street FrameworkThis area has a clear plan for how new developments should look and feel. This proposal ignoresa lot of that - especially things like building height, street layout, and how the area connects withthe rest of the city. It feels like it's been designed in isolation.

3. It could harm local wildlifeThe site is right next to Victoria Park and the railway, which are important spaces for wildlife likebats. The plans don't seem to do anything to reduce light pollution or protect these habitats.

4. The design isn't greatThe buildings are quite plain and blocky, with very little character. The use of materials and layoutdoesn't reflect the local area, and many flats don't have windows that open, which could be aproblem in hot weather.

5. Not enough outdoor spaceThere's hardly any outdoor space for the students who will live there - just a small shared areabetween hundreds of people. That's not enough for such a large development.

6. Parking will be a big problemThere are only 16 parking spaces planned, all for blue badge holders. With no other residentparking planned, people will end up parking in nearby streets - which are already crowded andhard to access for emergency services.

7. Not enough jobs or mixed useThe development is mostly housing, with very little space for shops, offices or workspaces. Thismeans it doesn't replace the jobs that will be lost from knocking down the current buildings.

8. Local services already under pressureIt's unclear whether local GPs and dentists can cope with the extra demand from hundreds moreresidents. Many people already struggle to get appointments.

Final ThoughtsThis development is too big, too dense, and doesn't respect the character of the area or the localplan. It risks harming views, wildlife, public spaces and local services. I believe it should berejected, and something more thoughtful and balanced should be put forward instead.

This proposed development fails on so many counts:The design does not conform to the Framework - density and height are not in keepingThe proportion of affordable housing is inadequate and not clear anyway.Housing is needed for families. There is already an increased provision of accommodation forstudents,This student block is unlikely to provide safe and amenable living accommodation for youngpeople some of whom may be experiencing mental health issues.The spaces between the blocks do not provide safe and amenable walkways.Parking spaces (i.e. not provided) are unrealistic,The design of windows will mean that people will need to cover them for privacy and thus needmore lighting - needing to be paid for.The design of windows will mean that some residents will need to cover them to provide shelterfrom the sun and then provide cooling - needing to be paid forThe height of the tallest buildings are totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood and will spoilviews, to the detriment of Victoria Park.These buildings appear to do nothing to provide local facilities, shops, business or amenity spacefor the many residents.I could go on.Do not let this application pass!

This development is ridiculously out of scale whe compared to the buildings thatsurround it. 19 storeys is far too high for this area. It appears that developers are cynically makig itthis tall in the hope that it will only be reduced by two storeys. It will harm the very important viewsover the city that can be seen from Victoria Park, as well as going against the topogrpahy. Thebuilding is ugly and appears to contravenes the Whitehouse Street framework, thereby setting adangerous precedent for the area. It also contravenes the SPD on Urba living. It is clear that thedevelopmet is very unpopular with local residents. Therefore the application should be rejected iits preset form.

I am submitting this objection on behalf of St Mary Redcliffe C of E primary school,which is located immediately adjacent to the site proposed for the construction of a 20-storeystudent accommodation building.As a primary school serving young children (ages 4-11), we have significant concerns about theimpact of this development on the safety, wellbeing, and learning environment of our pupils.1. Safeguarding & Privacy RisksThe height and scale of the building will overlook our playgrounds and classrooms. This createsserious safeguarding concerns and may lead to increased anxiety among pupils, staff, andparents. The feeling of being constantly observed from above could negatively affect outdoor playand wellbeing, even if the building is technically compliant.2. Operational DisruptionConstruction of a building of this scale will cause considerable disruption to our school:Noise and vibration will interfere with learning.Dust and pollution may pose health risks during outdoor activities.Construction traffic during school hours increases road safety risks for children and families.3. Out of Context with Local AreaThis building would be the tallest by far in the area. There is no precedent for a development ofthis scale here, and it does not align with the surrounding built environment. It representsoverdevelopment of a constrained site, immediately adjacent to a sensitive community facility.4. Incompatible Use - (Safeguarding Concern)The proposed use as student accommodation introduces a highly transient residential populationnext to a primary school. This raises concerns around noise, antisocial behaviour, and long-term

impacts on the sense of safety and cohesion in the community.

For all these reasons, we strongly urge the local authority to refuse this application. The proposalis not compatible with the immediate context, poses clear safeguarding risks, and undermines theoperational and educational integrity of our school.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear sir/madam, I'm writing to object to this proposal as a local resident. Victoria Park is

so incredibly important for the community here, a space for exercise, dog walks, time with family..

it's a green space that supports mental health and well being. A true escape from the city. This

scale of this tower block would bring the city into this valuable green space. For example proposed

building heights, notably Block D at 19 storeys and parts of Block C reaching 14

storeys, would block the current view of the sunset over the city that is filled with people every

evening through spring and summer. I also worry about the environmental damage of the build

itself on air quality and noise pollution. Especially being so close to the school.

Parking in the area is already very challenging and I also worry about the impact of this building in

that regard. The proposal talks about good public transport links but the reality is people don't use

them. It's just going to invite more cars to an already struggling area.

I urge Bristol council to rethink this development. Totterdown and Windmill Hill are both valuable

communities who would be hugely impacted by this build. Not just in day to day life but I'd argue

there are health implications that aren't realistically being considered too.

Regards,

This development will spoil the character of the area and in particular the view acrossthe city from Victoria Park. On every summer evening and sometimes at other times of the yearlocals gather on the bank of the park near the school to enjoy the sunset. Too little value is placedon on considerations such as residents quality of life when compared to demands of business andcommerce.

I object to the proposed development as being out of scale and having significantimpacts on the local area which the applicants evidence base fails to fully consider and indeed hassignificant weaknesses in the assessment leading to an overly favourable position. The reasonsfor my objection are:

day light and sunlight reportThe day light and sunlight report does not provide any assessment of the impacts to the loss oflight to the adjacent slope within Victoria Park adjacent to St Mary Redcliffe Primary School, whichhas the views over the city and is the part that catches the evening sun and therefore is incrediblypopular, frequently on sunny evenings throughout the year this space is full of people on someoccasions this year, there has been insufficient space with people having to sit on the football pitchinstead. The sun and light should be persevered to this area of the park ensuring amenity value isretained. This lack of inofrmaiton is against what it states in section 4.17 which states:Sunlight should be assessed on the equinox (21 March) to main back gardens of houses,allotments, parks and playing fields, children's playgrounds, outdoor swimming pools, sitting-outareas such as in public squares, and focal points for views, such as a group of monuments orfountains.

The day light and sunlight report should also consider the primary school as a receptor, as statedin the BRE guidance.

Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA)

This fails to fully consider the views from the key location of Victoria Park and the viewing plaque,this is located near the top of the slope and associated amenity area, it should consider the wholeof the grassed bank along with the views from the primary school including playgrounds whichcould become over looked.

Transport assessmentThis does not consider the potential implications of the scheme either individually or cumulativelyon the wider area. The statement within paragraph 7.4.13 is not justified or enforceable, theapplicant will have no means of assessing or determining whether any of their tenants havebrought a vehicle to the local area. The only means of demonstrating no impact elsewhere is forBCC to bring forward a residents parking scheme for the local area funded in perpetuity (for the100 year design life of the scheme as stated in the Flood Risk Assessment and the EnvironmentAgency) by the applicant and others in the whitehouse regeneration area. Without such measuresthe scheme will have a significant adverse effect on existing local residents. This should besecured by a section 106 agreement otherwise the scheme does not comply with Paragraph 109 cof the NPPF.7.4.13 The 16 proposed car parking spaces will be allocated to pre-determined units. Theremaining units will be rented out on the basis that the tenant cannot own and/or bring a vehicle tothe site. A restrictive covenant agreement can be included within the tenancy agreements toensure that residents of certain units to not own and/or bring a car to park within the local area

Impacts to Victoria ParkThere is significant adverse impacts to the amenity value of Victoria Park currently being felt, withincreased usage of the new PBSA residents which are impacting on usability of the football pitch,as there is conflict between users (pic-nics and sporting activities. There is also potential for lightspillages from the new living accommodation on ecology as more light will be used and at higherelevations which will change the light conditions within the park. There are now frequent over spillsof litter which the bins can not accommodate and BCC are unable to enforce existing byelawswhich means that bbq burn marks across the grass are a constant frequent sight. With thisdevelopment alone there will be a significant increase in users which should be managed andcontributions secured under Section 106 agreement to enhance the park and maintenance,especially as the students will not contribute to the funding of the park via council tax contributions.This should include enhancements to the play areas to offset pressures in other parts of the parkand improvements to the toilets to ensure that they are available and welcoming to the new usersof the park to avoid people having to use the wooded areas as an informal toilet. The scheme iscurrently considered to be uncompliant with paragraph 2.b and 98 a of the NPPF.

Impacts to st mary Redcliffe primary schoolThe shading, overlooking and capacity of St Mary Redfcliffe Primary School needs furtherattention. Furthermore, there is currently poor accommodation for the year 6 students, with aconstrained site with no space to further grow without the loss of increasingly important outdoorspace. Any increase in potential student numbers needs to be considered and appropriate

contributions secured, if indeed it is possible to provide capacity.The applicant should also give consideration to the construction phase impacts of the school withthe school operating a walking bus along whitehouse street, the safety of which should be securedand appropriate parking for parent drop off / collection provided, there is currently significantpressures and conflicts in this, which has been ongoing for several years. The safety of thechildren and other users should not impacted by the construction of this scheme.

Flood risk assessmentThe applicants assessment of flood risk is not in accordance with policy as set out by theEnvironment Agency's response, the scheme design should be refined once a full assessment iscompleted.

The height, character and design of the larger block and tower block in this proposeddevelopment are completely out of keeping with the rest of the area. Furthermore, it will bring nobenefit to existing residents of the area. The use of the tower as a student accomodation blockseems unnecessary given the declining numbers of students. Such high density accomodation willput further strain on services in the area; the park is already a very busy space and more highdensity housing has already been agreed in the Mead street development which will further stressthe area. The local GP and dental surgeries already struggle to provide sufficient appointments forexisting residents. The loss of light in the park and loss of views across the city will affect all parkusers. The Bristol Guide states "Victoria Park's elevated position offers breathtaking views ofBristol's colourful terraces on one side of the park and the whole city on the other." The impact ofthis development on the amenity the park provides in this regard will be significant and negative.

There's not enough parking, doctors, schools or dentists to accommodate that amountof new people.The same as the Barts spice site which is very similar.Building these new giant flats is unreasonable in this area given the lack of facilities avalable to thelocals already.This area can't accommodate that amount with no added essential facilities.The primary school opposite will be massively over subscribed.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Hi there,

I'm writing to object to this development as both the buildings work and resultant buildings will be

extremely disruptive and bad for the area of the school that it will overlook, the area of natural

beauty of Victoria Park and it's views, the amount of people it will bring and the area is already

overcrowded.

Best regards,

The pressure on the road with regards to construction traffic on a key route to theschool which is going to be significant for a building of this scale. The route is already congesteddue to the new one way system causing all of windmill hill to drive past the school whereas weused to be able to go straight to the malago.

The height of 20 storeys being too high for the area and overlooking the school.

Pollution from site activities during the build affecting the school, farm and local residences.

Not enough parking - will lead to unsafe parking in surrounding areas

This proposal is damaging in several aspects due to scale, noise and in terms of accessto green space for the mental health of the public.The height of the construction will block views of and from Bristol's iconic Totterdown colouredhouses. It will dominate the skyline of the area but yet have no connection with local communities.The arrogance of it will make people feel unconnected and ignored, and more resentful towardsthose who allowed it to happen. It will intrude on views from Victoria Park so there will be noescape from it, while at present Victoria park is an essential green space where people can getaway from the urban concrete.The shade cast from the building and the blocking of views from all perspectives will reduce thequality of life of all neighbouring residents.The noise in construction will also reduce quality of life and damage health, as it will be amplifiedby the valley and will add to the amplified noise pollution from traffic, trains, Motion nightclub, andother building works. Noise pollution had been proven to cause stress, increase heart attacks andstrokes and put more pressure on local health services. The taller the building is, the greater thispollution will be.The design is not iconic and will just make Bristol more like the generic cityscapes found anywherein the world, while obscuring the views that give Bristol it's character and identity.5-6 floors should be *maximum* for building in this area. We NEED the views and the sky space.There is no reason for such a huge building - unless someone is getting backhanders?

This proposal is damaging in several aspects due to scale, noise and in terms of accessto green space for the mental health of the public.The height of the construction will block views of and from Bristol's iconic Totterdown colouredhouses. It will dominate the skyline of the area but yet have no connection with local communities.The arrogance of it will make people feel unconnected and ignored, and more resentful towardsthose who allowed it to happen. It will intrude on views from Victoria Park so there will be noescape from it, while at present Victoria park is an essential green space where people can getaway from the urban concrete.The shade cast from the building and the blocking of views from all perspectives will reduce thequality of life of all neighbouring residents.The noise in construction will also reduce quality of life and damage health, as it will be amplifiedby the valley and will add to the amplified noise pollution from traffic, trains, Motion nightclub, andother building works. Noise pollution had been proven to cause stress, increase heart attacks andstrokes and put more pressure on local health services. The taller the building is, the greater thispollution will be.The design is not iconic and will just make Bristol more like the generic cityscapes found anywherein the world, while obscuring the views that give Bristol it's character and identity.5-6 floors should be *maximum* for building in this area. We NEED the views and the sky space.There is no reason for such a huge building - unless someone is getting backhanders?

This will cause massive pressure on already congested roads whilst construction istaking place on a key route for children attending SMRP school. The height of the building is fartoo high for the local area and will be overlooking the SMRP school, which causes a safeguardingissue.

This is yet another high rise scheme which will blight the south Bristol landscapeblocking iconic views and dominate Victoria Park and the adjacent escarpment.The scale of this proposal is not appropriate in this location and should be refused permission.

Overcrowding and unbalanced development

This development would add further overcrowding of traffic to already congested areas,particularly given plans that will no doubt be pushed through both to change the access on theAsda bridge/roundabout and also to make this a liveable neighbourhood area, restricting evenfurther the routes traffic can take.

The work will negatively impact the special beauty area of Victoria Park, part of its charm being theviews down over the city.

This development looks to prioritise the needs of visiting students over the local need foraffordable family accommodation. Plus, it ignores the feedback of local voices who were meant tobe prioritised through the consultation process.

As a resident of the area and parent of children that attend St Mary Redcliffe Primary Ihave serious concerns about this potential build. Whilst being an obvious eyesore on the beautifulpark nearby I also have concerns about the infrastructure in the area being able to cope with analready overloaded population for the local schools, doctors and nightmare parking!

Although in support of new housing in this area I strongly object to this proposeddevelopment as it currently stands.

I refer Bristol City Council planners to their own guidance regarding Urban Living (SPD) andmaking successful places at higher densities. I would urge BCC to challenge this proposeddevelopment using the very criteria they deem will ensure 'high quality homes are built in this City;good places to live for the young and old, including families.'

Some of my objections to this current scheme include:

Residential Density:For example, Wapping Wharf has 200 units/ha in a city centre setting.Paintworks, a similar urban setting to this Princess Street site, has 120 units/ha.

This proposed development appears to have 850 units across 1.6 hectares. This extremeresidential density is clearly unacceptable.

Height:The proposed building heights are out of context within an area of common character i.e. EastStreet and York Road. Tall buildings need to be positioned well and demonstrate designexcellence. Neither of which have been achieved in this proposal.

Car Free:Reducing car use is a worthy ambition but support to achieve this needs to be integrated within thedesign phase and 'future proofed'. There needs to be designated areas for accessible parking, carclubs, taxis, deliveries, for contractors, for scooter/bike hire, secure bike storage etc.Safe and pleasant walking routes to transport hubs are also imperative. Ignoring these essentialelements at design phase will greatly impact the quality of life for residents of the scheme and theirneighbouring communities.

Student Block:Not an appropriate location (regardless of height!) Has a need for student accommodation withinthis neighbourhood been demonstrated as a necessary requirement over and above housing forfull time residents? Should a, by nature, transient population be prioritised over a new urban areafor residents living in thoughtfully planed, developed and constructed homes?

Well designed homes, within a sympathetic landscape, will enable Bristol citizens to contributetowards creating a vibrant and equitable neighbourhood. One that is in harmony with the olderexisting communities surrounding it. This should be the ambition and the outcome for this primeurban site.

The quote below by Nye Bevan (founder of the NHS) was used to sum up Bristol City Council'scommitment to urban designs that create vibrant spaces with a high quality public realm.

'We shall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build. We will be judged in tenyears' time by the type of houses we build.'

It's back to the drawing board.

- too close to school

- way too high in general for the area, but especially next to a school. School will be overlooked +will destroy the feel of the park and school entrance.

- not in keeping with existing area, and promotes futher high rise development.

- lack parking already in local area, this will add to the problem.

- addtional stress on local services

- addtional mess.

- it's a peaceful area, and a wonderful place for kids to go to school. Please build something inkeeping with this. Not this proposal.

Pressure on an already busy road on the main route to the school.Even more road closures.Lack of parking provided in proposal.Parking outside the school already a issue.Impact on already busy local roads.

20 storeys is too high for the area and overlooking the school (safeguarding issue).

Pollution from construction affecting the school, farm and local residences/ businesses.

More students means more pressure on local services e.g. doctors, dentists etc and more rubbishin the park (the bins are regularly overflowing, more so since the other flats have been built)

I do not think that any buildings in the development area should be more than 8-10stores high. I think the balance between providing accommodation for students/ profits fordevelopers as compared with social housing and affordable family homes is wrong. The needs ofthe local community need to be prioritized. We have an opportunity to create an environmentbetween the new cut and Windmill Hill that will enhance the area and hopefully last for over 100years, as the terrace houses where I live have done, not react to current pressures in a short-sighted and ill-thought-out way. There are elements in the proposals that take account of the needfor safe, ecological neighborhoods where people feel at home, with appropriate infrastructure.These need to be drawn together into a coherent plan that will be an asset for future generations,not peppered with unacceptable anomalies.

My main concerns are ...

There will be an increase of pressure on the road with the construction traffic. It's on a key route toour local school which is going to be significant for a building of this scale.

The height of 20 storeys being too high for the area and overlooking our local school.

Pollution from site activities durning the build affecting our local school, farm and local residences.

The lack of parking provided which will have an huge impact on local roads which are alreadyunder pressure from constant road closures and construction.

There has been such a huge increase of residence in this local area already which we're alreadywitnessing having an impact on the park, traffic, local services and doctors.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: and use the park daily. We moved here exactly for the vast green

spaces and views. . Given the

proximity to the school and to our house this development will certainly have detrimental impact on

the quality of air during the development phase and beyond. This is my main concern as both of

Regards,

I absolutely oppose this inappropriate development. I've lived in Windmill Hill for 26years and it's a fantastic close, friendly community and place to live for so many reasons - but thisproposed new development will significantly alter and in fact ruin the character of the area and somuch of what I love about it.

The recent developments in the area of the past couple of years around Bedminster Green rightlyhad strong objections due to the height of the buildings and yet they still went ahead.Consequently, our beautiful local city farm is now imposed upon and overshadowed and some ofthe spectacular views from the top of streets at the top of Windmill Hill have been destroyed forgenerations to come, as well as all sorts of pressures now being felt by our local community due tothe number of new residents.

This proposed new development will absolutely wreck the views from Victoria Park across the citywhere every evening local residents gather to enjoy the sunset. 20 storeys is appallingly high andeven the lowest buildings proposed are at least two storeys too high.

We do need new affordable housing for the local families and their growing children that currentlylive in the area. However, that is not what's being proposed. No doubt the developers haveproposed buildings of this height knowing that there will be strong objections - and then they willcome across in comparison as if they are compromising when they reduce the height somewhat(although even that will be unlikely to be to what would be appropriate for the surroundingcontext). But in fact what they will do is say that they can't afford to go ahead with the

development unless they remove most or all of the affordable housing - which was likely their planall along, to maximise their profits - a common and deplorable strategy.

We do not need further student accommodation in this particular area - the local community will beoverwhelmed and destroyed; it is already significantly changed and overwhelmed by the recentstudent housing in Bedminster Green.

Not to mention - where is the proposed supporting infrastructure needed for a development for thismany people? Our existing infrastructure is already under huge pressure as it is.

I am also concerned about the impact on local nature and biodiversity, and the manner in whichour local nature is being 'exported' outside of Bristol and even across the country through the slackregulations that allow developers to purchase 'biodiversity credits'. These allow for our local urbanecosystems and wildlife in eg, Bedminster to be destroyed, and an area on the other side of thecountry - also quite probably not within an urban area either - gains. Wildlife needs to be protectedeverywhere and wildlife corridors must be preserved and enhanced - and compliance on this mustbe ensured.

It is essential that this proposed development is reconsidered and that the community and thelocal context, community and landscape is appropriately taken into consideration.

We were looking to buy a house in the Victoria Park area but have been significantly putoff by this proposal due to the impact it would have on local infrastructure and the view, peace andquiet we were looking for

Far too big for the area

Way to tall. Don't believe it should see over the park. Windows would look into myhouse

Too big for the area

There is significant over development in the area already. Is it negatively impactingparking and services for paying residents as well as littering in our green spaces due to largestudent groups.

I object this development

We don't need more students in the area. We need people that live here to be able toafford the places they have lived all their life. This development will negatively affect and takeaway key spaces used and enjoyed by the current community. We don't need more moneygrabbing developers ruining the communities of Bristol.

Too much impact on adjoining green space. Excessive light pollution in an urban darksky area.The priority should be building affordable housing for all, not profiteering from students in an areawith ample student accommodation as it is.The community has not been listened to.

I am objecting to a 19 story tower block next to Victoria Park for the following reasons.The view of Bristol from Victoria Park is iconic. It is an intergenerational gathering place and thiswill be ruined by the proposed tower block. In addition Victoria Park is a precious green space inthe city and home to much wildlife - light pollution will impact this piece of urban nature. Theplanned development is for student accommodation of which there is already a lot in this area.This will create unbalanced development which prioritises commercial interest over the needs oflocal people, including for affordable homes.

As local residents, and as parents of a child at St Mary Redcliffe, we would like to echothe four points of concern expressed by the school, and to add a fifth, significant concern.

1. Safeguarding & Privacy Risks The height and scale of the building will overlook our playgroundsand classrooms. This creates serious safeguarding concerns and may lead to increased anxietyamong pupils, staff, and parents. The feeling of being constantly observed from above couldnegatively affect outdoor play and wellbeing, even if the building is technically compliant.

2. Operational Disruption Construction of a building of this scale will cause considerable disruptionto our school: Noise and vibration will interfere with learning. Dust and pollution may pose healthrisks during outdoor activities. Construction traffic during school hours increases road safety risksfor children and families.

3. Out of Context with Local Area This building would be the tallest by far in the area. There is noprecedent for a development of this scale here, and it does not align with the surrounding builtenvironment. It represents overdevelopment of a constrained site, immediately adjacent to asensitive community facility.

4. Incompatible Use - (Safeguarding Concern) The proposed use as student accommodationintroduces a highly transient residential population next to a primary school. This raises concernsaround noise, antisocial behaviour, and long-term impacts on the sense of safety and cohesion inthe community

5. Traffic - congestion and pollution. The high density residential usage proposed by this designwould put unreasonable pressure on the local roadways, both during construction, and markedlyso following completion as no parking (beyond legal requirements for disabled access) has beenincluded in the design. The increased congestion as large numbers of new residents coming andgoing from the area is a serious safety risk for children attending the local school. There is also aheightened environmental risk - as traffic fumes form vehicles idling, competing for scarce onstreet parking will likely cause serious hazard to children's health.

We request that Bristol City Council seriously consider the density and scale of the proposeddevelopment, and recommend that development in the area is altered in consideration of theabove, making it possible to rejuvenate the space and welcome new people to the area, whilstprotecting the safety, privacy and health of children in the nearby school.

Don't ruin a spot which brings people's lives peace in the city! It's about protectingpeople mental health

The proposed development will dominate the skyline and tarnish the visual aesthetic ofVictoria Park, a communal area that many use recreationally to relax, unwind and escape the citylife.

Absolutely object. There is more than enough student housing, particularly in this area.This will completely change the demographic of the area. The plan will ruin the beautiful skylineand be an eye sore. Crime, littering, drink and drugs have gone up since the opening of the lasthousing. No more.

I strongly object to the proposed development. The community in Bristol desperatelyneeds more affordable homes, not more private student accommodation. Searching for houses asa renter in Bristol is already incredibly difficult, any new developments need to be affordablehousing for residents. Bedminster is not the right place for students either. There are no campuseshere and the transport links to the universities are incredibly poor. In addition, the 19 story towerwill dramatically change the view and the light in the park. The park is a valuable and well usedcommunity resource. Go to the park in any evening and you will find lots of people at the topcatching the last of the sun and enjoying the view. The tower block would rudely interrupt this. Thisplanning application should be thrown out. Bristol desperately needs sustainable building of newhomes and this insult to the skyline is not what we need.

I object as this will increase pollution and put pressure on all aspects of the communityand also the local wildlife

As a frequent user of Victoria Park and it's surrounding beauty and views, I object to theheight of this construction and to the construction of even more ugly and uninteresting studenthousing that blocks views, creates parking congestion, contributes to light pollution and is not fitfor being re-purposed into regular housing in the future.

Bristol is known for it's beautiful views and murals. Why can't these massive student housingprojects at least contribute to this? Why are they all tall brown cuboids? Why can't they have vividcolours with interesting architecture, covered in greenery and murals?

Bristol needs more help for local residence not students. This shouldn't be going on.Has there been consideration for Greenspace and environmental impact of a building as well asnoise pollution from students?

This tower is too tall and not appropriate for this setting. I support housing in this areabut this should be at 6-8 stories. The proposed tower will also overshadow the local primary schooland ruin the view from the park.

Another student block will cause excessive light pollution and ruin the beautiful skyline.There are already issues with overcrowding and parking with the additional student block inBedminster, it would be ridiculous to make this even worse. We require affordable housing forpeople who want to live in Bristol, not student accommodation.

Not in my backyard! Keep this up and it will ruin a lovely city, and the great view fromVictoria Park. Stop destroying the country

Despite consistent objections on this matter, Bristol Council has again gone againstpublic opinion, having already allowed swathes of high rise apartments and studentaccommodation to be built in Windmill Hill and surrounding areas. These are out of character forthe area and the city as a whole, and are unnecessarily high. What we need is affordable familyhomes, yet any development which has been finished has drastically reduced the amount of socalled "affordable housing" promised in plans, in favour of profit.The unfinished behemoth on Bath Rd is a blot on the landscape and an eyesore for localresidents. I would think priority would be given to complete this existing building before beginningnew developments.This particular proposal is far too high and will spoil views of the iconic Totterdown escarpment, aswell as causing light pollution in the designated dark space of Victoria Park.It will place huge strain on already overstretched services with no benefit to local communities.Instead it will further strangle local roads, schools and doctor's surgeries with no proposal toincrease capacity of these services.This has ridden roughshod over the supposed Whitehouse St consultation, ignoring concerns ofresidents despite clear evidence of these concerns already being proven justified through similardevelopments in the area.BCC needs to prioritise the needs of its residents and not those of private developers whose onlymotivation is profit, not people.

The height of the new building will be detrimental to the city view park and school.

The number and density of new residents will but even more stress on local infrastructureincluding doctors, roads, parking, walking, transport and open spaces.

There are plenty of places students can live without impacting a qui g community greenspace

I approve of this application in is entirety. While I recognize the concerns of localcommunity groups I wish it to be known that they do not speak for every local.

I am acutely aware of the depth of bristols housing crisis having struggled to rent or even buyproperty here again and again for the past decade. I believe we just increase housing densityconsiderably even if that means building accommodation that offends those lucky enough toalready call bs3 their home.

I commute through this area every day and to me it is in dire need of regeneration. The mixed usedevelopment with green spaces sounds like a far better use of this valuable space a <20min walkfrom the city centre. In that context "The tallest building in the area" is something to be celebrated,not objected to.

The size and scale of this building is totally out of proportion to the views of VictoriaPark. The city already has a surplus of student accommodation. Why isn't the council buildinghomes for local communities instead of blighting the local landscape with more high rise blocks offlats? Green spaces need to be looked after and protected.Greedy local planners need to look intothe future to safeguard the beautiful green spaces of Bristol. So many awful buildings have beenbuilt in the city over the last 75 years and are now currently being demolished as they arehorrendous eyesores .

The proposed designs would greatly affect the view over the city from Victoria Park, amuch loved park.These anonymous blocks would detract from the character of the area and not contribute to acommunity spirit

This does not need to be built! Where are the new homes for people who need to themlocally. We have enough student housing. Victoria Park is a beautiful park and we need to protectit in terms of infrastructure and skyline. Our green spaces need to be protected and enhanced notruined by unsightly high rise blocks of flats! Think again!

For the most part the development has been consulted on clearly and openly.The resultant application has however gone against many of the principles the consultation aimedto satisfy.Scale and massing overwhelms the surrounding buildings and dominates the adjacent park andgreen spaces.The skyline has been broken and interrupts views to and from the city.The mass is excessive at 8 storeys, the scale of the buildings along York Road sit well against theriver but these are generally 5 or 6 storeys. What is the justification of such tall buildings. Theresultant streets will feel oppressive and amplify the wind tunnel effect due to orientation. Whitehouse is already windy.We all aspire to be greener and reducing travel by car but recently, especially in the roads aroundVictoria Park and streets in Totterdown are becoming congested by people looking to park beforeheading to work. Are there any plans for RPZs in these areas? Will more car club spaces beintroduced within the new development.?There are already issues with lack of dentist and doctor's surgery spaces. How is the density ofthe development justifiable in areas where these facilities don't exist.?Furthermore this feels like another missed opportunity for Bristol as a city to develop a robustmaster plan for future community developments without being railroaded by developers becausethey are under resourced.This should be a straight NO with a gentle reminder of the tall buildings policy.

These buildings will blight the area and spoil a valuable vista across the city. Alreadythe area suffers from diminishing amenities and traffic is at a standstill, a more modestdevelopment would be a lot more in keeping with the surrounding environment.

I am writing to object to the proposed development (as is) which includes a 19-storeystudent accommodation development adjacent to St Mary Redcliffe Primary School and VictoriaPark and near to the Windmill Hill City Farm. This scheme raises serious concerns about itsimpact on the wellbeing of residents (including residents of the accommodation), the localenvironment, and the character of the area. It also fails to take note of previous local views andopinions.

1. Impact on WellbeingThe height and scale of the proposed tallest unit, at 19 storeys, is wholly out of keeping with thesurrounding area and risks negatively impacting the wellbeing of:Local residents and schoolchildren, due to loss of privacy, increased noise, and disruption duringconstruction.Students themselves, as high-rise living has been linked to poorer mental health and reducedsocial cohesion, especially when distant from established university campuses and facilities.

2. Pressure on InfrastructureThe proposal places significant pressure on already overstretched local infrastructure, including:GPs, dentists, and supermarkets, which are currently at capacity.Roads and traffic, particularly given nearby changes to road layouts and liveable neighbourhoodproposals. Despite being promoted as a low-car development, it is unrealistic to assume zero carownership, and no effective enforcement measures are proposed.

3. Victoria Park and Environmental Impact, Windmill Hill City FarmVictoria Park is a key community amenity and is designated as a Dark Skies site. Thisdevelopment would:Introduce light pollution affecting local wildlife and disrupt the park's tranquillity and endanger theDark Sky Designation.Obstruct cherished views across the city, sunsets, and the iconic Bristol hot air balloon launches-integral to the area's identity and residents' enjoyment and wellbeing.There is also concern that the construction pollution and traffic (including noise pollution) couldhave negative impact on the farm and it's animals. The farm is another key community asset andalso includes a nursery.

4. Questionable Need for More Student HousingWith new student accommodation already available at Dalby Avenue, Feeder Road (opening2025), and Gas Lane (closer to the new University campus), it is unclear how much genuinedemand exists for this location. It is not evident whether local universities have been meaningfullyconsulted on actual need or preferred locations.

5. Lack of Fit with Local CharacterThis development represents a dramatic shift in local urban form. Its scale, design, and density areout of context with the existing community and built environment. It risks becoming an isolated,high-impact structure that offers little benefit to local people.

In summary, this proposal risks harming the wellbeing of both existing and future residents,overburdening local infrastructure, and degrading an important green space. I urge the Council toreject the application and request a scheme more in keeping with community needs and context.

The buildings completely ruin the skyline particularly from Totterdown. Additionally thelack of parking is going to cause issues on surrounding areas, including where I live, where thereis already enough traffic and parking problems

Ruins the view from the top of totterdown. This is a community spot where peoplegather to watch fireworks, especially on New Year's Eve. Many local residents gather to watch thehot air balloons ascent from Ashton court. This is vital for community cohesion and a neighbourlyfeel to totterdown. The erection of this excessively large building will disrupt the view and hinderthe local community experience. Disrupts landscape in general.Appearance is not in keeping with Bristol city line. Too high!I imagine this will also add to traffic and pollution and make locals' commutes longer, adding tocongestion locally.Concerned it will impact parking in local area and make it harder to find parking spots.But mostly the public view will be disrupted and a classic and impressive view of Bristol will bedestroyed which is demoralising. It does not need to be so obstructive- it could be designed in away that it considers the already r existing landscape and needs of the local community.

The proposed development is far too big, far too tall and far too wide for the surroundingarea. It disrupts the view from just about any direction in a way that's thoroughly unpleasant. Thedesign is unsympathetic to the local area as well as in general, there is nothing interesting about it,nothing to 'warm to'. Considering the vast number of people the proposed development isintending to house, the local area already has a significant problem with parking and general trafficflow so adding that many people to the area will only increase this problem. The proposed parkingfacilities aren't nearly sufficient for the number of extra vehicles.

I strongly object to the proposed 19-storey tower block next to Victoria Park.

This development poses serious and long-lasting harm to the local area in several ways:

Loss of public views and green space character: Victoria Park is one of the few remaining opengreen spaces offering unspoiled views of the sky and surrounding landscape. The proposed high-rise would dominate the skyline, blocking cherished views into and out of the park, whileincreasing light pollution and undermining the calm, natural feel of this vital public space.

Traffic and parking pressure: A development of this scale, bringing in 400 additional students, willsignificantly strain local infrastructure. Even if described as a 'no car' development, the increasedpopulation will inevitably lead to more traffic, competition for parking, and pressure on publicservices in an already overstretched part of South Bristol.

Appearance and scale: A 19-storey building is entirely out of keeping with the area's character. Itwould be visually intrusive, dwarfing the surrounding buildings and altering the historic identity ofthe park and neighbourhood.

This proposal prioritises corporate student housing over the needs of local families. We should beencouraging a variety of low-rise, sustainable buildings that promote communal living and long-

term community growth. The new Windmill Hill development is a great example-focusing onshared green spaces, low-impact design, and affordable homes.

Ignored community voices: This plan goes against the community-led vision that emerged from theWhitehouse Street consultation, which prioritised local needs and supported small, independentbusinesses. It's unacceptable to see those views ignored in favour of large-scale, top-downconstruction.

We need development that works with the community, not against it. That means low-rise, human-scale housing, integrated with green space and local infrastructure-not a towering block that willcast a long shadow, both literally and figuratively, over Victoria Park and the communities thatcherish it.

The proposed development is far too big, far too tall and far too wide for the surroundingarea. It disrupts the view from just about any direction in a way that's thoroughly unpleasant. Thedesign is unsympathetic to the local area as well as in general, there is nothing interesting about it,nothing to 'warm to'. Considering the vast number of people the proposed development isintending to house, the local area already has a significant problem with parking and general trafficflow so adding that many people to the area will only increase this problem. The proposed parkingfacilities aren't nearly sufficient for the number of extra vehicles.

My grounds for objection are as follows:

The proposed scheme represents an excessively high-density development in an areacharacterised predominantly by two- to three-storey Victorian terraced housing and low-risecommercial premises. Local objections note that "this development is too high for the area" andthat a previous, lowerheight proposal was already deemed inappropriate.The current proposalincreases both the height and number of units beyond what was already rejected, indicatingdisregard for local character.

The massing of the proposed blocks would overwhelm the surrounding streetscape, creating whatobjectors describe as a "vast wasteland of stacked boxes devoid of quality or character". Suchbulky forms are entirely out of scale with adjacent heritage assets and vernacular architecture. TheBedminster Conservation Area Appraisal warns that "over-scaled buildings" harm the setting ofheritage assets and "spoil key views" - such as those from the corner of Richmond street lookingover Bristol.

The proximity and height of the new blocks will cause significant overshadowing to existingneighbouring properties. This loss of natural light is contrary to Core Strategy Policy BCS21(Balanced Communities) which expects development to "avoid unacceptable harm to localamenity" through overshadowing or overbearing massing.

Many of the proposed windows face directly toward existing residential gardens and living rooms

on Princess Street and adjoining terraces.

Bringing in over 1,200 additional occupants-many of whom will be transient student tenants-willintensify noise levels on Princess Street, and the wider Bedminster Green area, which cannot beadequately mitigated by routine acoustic measures (e.g., mechanical ventilation restrictingopenable windows).

The Design and Access Statement indicates provision for only three parking spaces to servepotentially hundreds of new residents and visitors. This is grossly inadequate in an area alreadysubject to significant onstreet parking stress. The Council's own guidance (Parking StandardsSPD, adopted April 2018) requires a minimum parking provision of at least 0.5-1 space perdwelling in areas of moderate to high parking demand. Failing to provide any meaningful parkingwill push residents to seek onstreet spaces, intensifying existing congestion on East Street, andnearby residential routes. Bedminster Parade and Princess Street is already a notorious pinchpoint at peak hours. This proposal would similarly worsen conditions where access is limited andsightlines are poor. Inadequate vehicular access and egress arrangements increase hazards forpedestrians-particularly children traveling to local schools-and exacerbate air quality problems.

The applicant's servicing strategy relies on offsite dropoffs and onstreet loading bays, neither ofwhich address the practicalities of waste collection for large student blocks. Overflowing bins andfrequent refuse vehicle stoppages on Princess Street would obstruct traffic flow, compoundingsafety and congestion issues.

Alhough limited open spaces are proposed within the development, these are minor areas ofhardstanding or narrow pocket parks that cannot compensate for the loss of existing softlandscaping and community amenity. Victoria Park, a valued local park with mature trees andwildlife, will be hemmed in by tall blocks, resulting in diminished sunlight, leaffall clutter, and aneroded sense of openness for existing and future users.

Bristol faces an acute shortage of family and affordable housing, yet this scheme prioritisesstudent accommodation (over 1,200 student bedspaces) rather than family homes. Localcommentaries note "family housing is needed rather than student flats, which add little value tolocal areas". This conflict with Core Strategy Policy BCS1 (Settlement Hierarchy) and Policy H3(Affordable Housing) is stark: the Council should direct market housing to mixed communitiesrather than concentrated student blocks.

Concentrating large student blocks in Bedminster undermines the vision of a balanced, mixeduseneighbourhood. It puts strain on social infrastructure-GP surgeries, dentists, schools-and riskscreating an unsupportive residential environment, with high turnover and limited communitycohesion. This is contrary to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) objectives and the City'sambition for sustainable neighbourhoods.

I strongly object to the proposed 19-storey tower block next to Victoria Park.

This development poses serious and long-lasting harm to the local area in several ways:

Loss of public views and green space character: Victoria Park is one of the few remaining opengreen spaces offering unspoiled views of the sky and surrounding landscape. The proposed high-rise would dominate the skyline, blocking cherished views into and out of the park, whileincreasing light pollution and undermining the calm, natural feel of this vital public space.

Traffic and parking pressure: A development of this scale, bringing in 400 additional students, willsignificantly strain local infrastructure. Even if described as a 'no car' development, the increasedpopulation will inevitably lead to more traffic, competition for parking, and pressure on publicservices in an already overstretched part of South Bristol.

Appearance and scale: A 19-storey building is entirely out of keeping with the area's character. Itwould be visually intrusive, dwarfing the surrounding buildings and altering the historic identity ofthe park and neighbourhood.

This proposal prioritises corporate student housing over the needs of local families - we should beencouraging a variety of low-rise, sustainable buildings that promote communal living and long-

term community growth. The new Windmill Hill development is a great example-focusing onshared green spaces, low-impact design, and affordable homes.

Ignored community voices: This plan goes against the community-led vision that emerged from theWhitehouse Street consultation, which prioritised local needs and supported small, independentbusinesses. It's unacceptable to see those views ignored in favour of large-scale, top-downconstruction.

We need development that works with the community, not against it. That means low-rise, human-scale housing, integrated with green space and local infrastructure-not a towering block that willcast a long shadow, both literally and figuratively, over Victoria Park and the communities thatcherish it.

I'm writing to object about the height and density of this proposed tower block. It iscompletely out of keeping with the existing skyline and is disproportionately high and dense for thearea. There is insufficient infrastructure and services to support the development and will increasepressure on services (parking, increasing congestion, GP surgeries, school places) for existingresidents in Windmill Hill and Totterdown and neighbours and users of Victoria Park who come toadmire the cityscape and balloons, Suspension Bridge and the skyline of Bristol.

Too high

Due to the overbearing size of the towers this application would significantly alter theskyline of the city as seen from various places. The site is near to Victoria Park where there areimportant views across the city. No sensible review of the plans could suggest that a 19 storeytower is justified here. More importantly, the responses from Historic England, Historic Buildings &Places, TRESA and others all point out that it would not be in line with the relevant policies. TheRegeneration Framework mentions 10 storeys - 19 cannot be justified.Even the lower towers are set in such a way that from various viewpoints they would appear tomerge into one, meaning a much bigger impact on sightlines. In most of the photomontagesprovided, the main tower stands out like a sore thumb.The impact on local historic structures including St Mary Redcliffe would be considerable andunjustified.The density of the accommodation also seems very high.The towers are bland, look like any other tower and don't attempt to blend with the local buildingsat all.

For all these reasons I object.

The level of high rise development in the locality is becoming a significant blot on theenjoyment, amenities, resources and views of this south Bristol neighbourhood. A 20 storydevelopment will change this neighbourhood for ever and will completely overshadow the park andlocal housing. Sough Bristol will soon be dominated by high rise developments that will change theface of this locality forever, and not for a positive reason.

We have to many towers in Bristol it ruined our town and how people really want tohave a house with garden bring up there family and more green places not just towers and largebuilding

This development would obscure a highly valued view for south Bristol residents. I amalso concerned about the impact the light pollution could have on the diverse wildlife in VictoriaPark.

I object to this plan. The building will obscure views of my neighbours and has notexplained how local GP practices and how the local nurseries/ preschools and schools will copewith the large number of new residents. The infrastructure is already under strain. Please no morehigh rises!

This high rise block is totally out of character for the area. Social structure is notavailable to support this number if flats, eg Gp, dentist.

Every day in tbe summer the spot is swamped with people walking the view. Is ameaningful spot for many bristol members. It no just a view for some home owner but a publicview in a park that has a plack is so loved.

Another scheme to try and pull the wool over our eyes. Sort out bath road first

There are no enough services in the surrounding area e.g. parking spaces, GPS, shopsand supermarkets, etc.Traffic is already bad and it will get worse. Transports are not enough for the people who live inthe area.Prioritising students is wrong as we need more families, older people, and people who contributeto the community.General pollution, noise and light pollution are also a big concern and will impact wildlife and thecommunity.Windmill hill has seen already an increase in traffic and a decrease of parking spaces.There has been also an increase in rubbish everywhere and recycling often not showing up. Thisled to pest issues as well in the area.

I am strongly opposed to this development as it will cause our park to becomeovercrowded and likely noisy with students. We have an autistic son with extreme levels of anxietyand we rely on the park to get him outside as he gets overwhelmed and scared in unfamiliar orcrowded spaces. When we moved here a year ago, we chose this location because it is quiet andby the park. Please reconsider this development in such a peaceful family orientatedneighbourhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Development will drastically affect the atmosphere of the local community andenjoyment of green space and put strain on local amenities, traffic and parking.

I object to this monstrosity.

High rise housing doesn't work, low level high density is much better at creating neighbourhoods,high rises create ghettos. The maintenance involved in high rise buildings is rarely maintainedleading to people, mainly women as they do most of the child care being stranded.

Additionally it's a really ugly building without any positive aesthetics that's going to ruin the skyline- south Bristol have enough of these structures, we don't need another.

Furthermore, there's no parking and the public transport of Bristol doesn't allow for car feeexistence and there is no mention of additional amenities to relieve the stress and influx ofpopulation of this magnitude will place on already stretched services.

The Whitehouse Regeneration Framework which was adopted by BCC has beendisregarded.

The proposed development is too high, and there are already thousands of flats/studentaccommodation already built or planned for this very small area.

It will ruin a popular viewpoint in Victoria Park.

If a similar number of developments were proposed in say, Clifton, there is no way they would allbe approved.

Stop imposing thousands of new homes in BS3 and just expecting existing infrastructure to cope.

This development is totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood. This area of Bristolhas had a strong community for 150 years based on low rise terraced housing. It will totallydestroy the community cohesion of the area. The 21storeys will destroy the view which all thepeople in Victoria Park enjoy every day - and indeed the view for all people in South Bristol. Thelack of parking provision will make an already choked area even more gridlocked.

Will create overcrowding and parking issues

We live in very close proximity to the park, and although whilst I was a student I lived ina similar block in the centre. I understand the importance of this sort of infrastructure for studentslooking to move to Bristol, however I think the location and impact on an important local greenspace is totally inappropriate. This should not be allowed to proceed as currently planned.

I object to the tower block being built. The view from Victoria park is a unique andbeautiful spot just out of the city, and blocking this view with more student accommodation wouldruin this. The student accommodation is nowhere near a university and is exploitative of studentsmoving to the area, and the area is not fit for a capacity that large.

Too high and not enough consideration given to local community. I.e drs / dentist /community spaces / playpark

It is just too darned big! Half the size, maybe. But this is an utter 'carbuncle'. Pleasedon't do it.

Below are the comments on the Princess Street application from the Windmill Hill andMalago Planning Group (WHaM). The group understands the proposals are for the demolition ofall buildings on the site and the construction of 450 dwellings and 400 student bedspaces within 4blocks.

WHaM objects to this proposal because it is out of scale for the local context, ignores theemerging policy and current frameworks, will damage the setting and nature of Victoria Park, andhave a detrimental impact on the animals that live there and use the green space of the park andthe route along the railway bank. We are concerned about the quality of the design with regard toits visual impact, appearance and suitability for the future with particular regard to overheating; weelaborate on this below.

Technical issues with the submissionFrom looking at the documents, the group was concerned that there may be discrepancies onsome of the large site scale drawings. This may lead to inaccurate interpretation regarding thespacing of the blocks, and should be checked prior to a decision being made. On these drawings,either the declared scale, or drawn scale bars are incorrect; the following specific drawings havebeen noted, though there may be others:- Proposed site plan 23008 -CAL-000-000-DR-A-00003- Proposed roof plan 23008 -CAL-000-119-DR-A-04020- Proposed ground floor plan 23008 -CAL-000-100-DR-A-04001

We suspect in each instance the annotation scale bar needs correcting.This has made it difficult to be certain of the scale of what is proposed; as noted above,clarification should be sought.

Whitehouse Street FrameworkAs will be detailed in the following sections, we are concerned that the proposed WhitehouseStreet Framework has been ignored in several key aspects with this design, the key differencesare noted in paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 below. Approving it with thesedeliberate contraventions will set a dangerous precedent for remaining development in the areawhich ultimately led to a poor-quality regeneration of the whole area. The framework is clear, andthe designed scheme should be designed to comply with it.

1.0 - HeightIt is noted on the framework that the site has potential for a 'Contextual tall building'. Theimmediate existing context is for low level masonry buildings as terraced houses or masonry(brick) industrial units with detailing around doors and windows, and visually apparent copingsatop parapets. There are some lightweight steel buildings of 2-3 storeys nearby as well. When thesite is viewed from the north across the river a Georgian terrace with stone fronts presents arestrained face, the back of this terrace is visible as series of painted, rendered backs. To thesouth Victoria Park is a large green space. The proposed collection of buildings does not respondin any way to the above context and does not represent an attempt to transition from that contextto the tall brick buildings with narrow slit windows. It is not an example of the high-quality designrequired by the framework.

1.1 The framework notes that as development gets taller it is expected to have a lower plotcoverage. In this particular scheme the blocks are tightly spaced and much of the ground at theeast side is used for parking around the student block. We believe this is not in accordance withthe framework and that more of the site area should be given to open space.

1.2 The framework is quite clear that development is expected to make a positive contribution tomid-range long range and intermediate views but the Townscape Visual Impact Assessment(TVIA) makes it clear that this is not happening. There will undoubtedly be a detrimental impact onthe setting of Victoria Park.

- The tallest parts of the scheme are wildly out of context for the development, bearing no relationto the immediate context, overshadowing the nearby green space and other future development.This is very clear in the views taken from Bedminster Station and the play area at the foot ofVictoria Park (St Luke's Road). Both show a towering object that looms over the park and is muchtoo tall for the context, dwarfing those features that the local plan and Whitehouse StreetFramework have highlighted as important features. The group believes that as the building hasbeen shown to be so visible across the park it is too dominant, and the impact is harmful- Even the lower buildings are much taller than the existing context, the height of Block C does not

seem to be in keeping with the height intentions of the framework, being above the viewpoint onVictoria Park.- It is very disappointing to see how much the towers impinge on views from key points in the localarea and beyond:o From the viewpoint on Victoria Park the development clearly affects the appearance of keylandscape features such as St Mary Redcliffe church and conceals the Georgian terrace alongYork Road; it brackets off the eastern side of the vista which has a negative effect on the key viewfrom Victoria Park - a historic view specifically noted on the Know Your Place website. This isunacceptable.o The Redcliffe flats are also identified as a key landmark. They too are obscured by the building.o The view from Victoria Grove demonstrates that the building significantly damages the view fromthe north to Victoria Park, contravening not only the framework but also the SPD on Urban Livingwhich requires tall buildings not to mask topography, this view shows that the building clearly doesthis.o The long-distance views from Park Street and Perret's Park show breaches of skyline in a waythat highlights the extraordinary mass of the building, combined with the banal and massivemasonry appearance of the building. This would not an attractive additional to any skylinecontravening the framework and as noted the SPD on Urban Living.- Wind modelling shows key public space asked for in the framework may not be suitable forseated activities.- The Visual permeability to Victoria park is significantly harmed. This is against the WhitehouseStreet Framework which says that "development is expected to make a positive contribution tomid-range long range and intermediate views" as noted above, the TVIA makes it clear this is nothappening.

2.0 - Effect on wildlife at nightWe are concerned by the building's proximity to the park and railway line to the south. Bats andother wildlife are known to use the railway line as a commuter route and as a feeding ground atnight and there seems to be little consideration for how lit windows on the southern side will impactthese areas at night. There is no proposal in the documents to limit this.

3.0 - Visual appearanceThe SPD on urban living requires all developments to be of exemplary design. The group does notfeel this is reflected for the following reasons:- Many of the units do not have openable windows, restricting occupants' choice. Perhapsalterations to the design could be made to avoid this and avoid reliance on mechanical ventilationwhich will incur a cost to the occupant to run.- The nature of the design will overshadow future development to the north far more significantlythat any other development that is to be found on the site currently and will significantly impact thedesign of those blocks, impairing their amenity- It is not clear why those materials have been selected for the finish of the building. In form andtexture these do not really speak to the local context and across all the building blend together to

form a single block from certain angles.- These buildings do not seem to have a top middle or bottom and do not respond to the SPD onUrban Living.- The choice of façade material is an unrelieved brick. Visually this is creating a wall with manynarrow slits that repeat across the façade.In terms of visual appeal this is not a building that demonstrates exemplary design but promotes abanal, dull, appearance whose choice of material speaks of economy and is not an example ofhigh-quality design that a tall visually apparent building in this context should be demonstrating.

4.0 - Outdoor amenity spaceThere appears to be very little private outside amenity space for students and it is not entirely clearhow much (or how little) there is. It appears from the roof plan that there will be a total of 270square metres for all 400 students, whereas the landscape drawings seem to give a total ofapproximately 144 square metres. We would welcome a clarification of this apparent discrepancybut surely in either case, the space is not enough. A much more modest building would suit such alevel of amenity space if this is all the site will support.

5.0 - Indoor amenity spaceUnder the framework, development is not to be undertaken to create a residential district, but amixed use one allowing for replacement jobs for those which will be lost in demolition. Thisdevelopment has some commercial space at ground level but nothing on any floor above this.There is some amenity space at ground level in block C, though there is a note implying some ofthis could become residential or commercial space instead. For this development to live up to theaims of the framework it needs to be clear how much amenity and how much commercial space isbeing provided. That this development contains a bias towards residential units was expected, butit cannot be allowed to set a precedent for residential development which will offer no economicre-development for the area. Firm areas should be in place prior to a decision being made.

6.0 - Local facilitiesThe documentation notes that they understand there is NHS provision for 10,000+ more people inthe local area. Anecdotally the group hears on a number of residents struggling to access dentaland GP services. Can this be clarified as to where and by whom these services are beingprovided?

7.0 - PrivacyAll the apartments appear to have floor to ceiling glazing. This is not the best choice of facades forpreserving individual privacy and it may lead to curtains or blinds being left closed during the daywith a consequent costly increase in the use of artificial lighting.

8.0 - Quality of housing8.1 Since Purpose Built Student Accommodation was not included in the Whitehouse StreetRegeneration framework, a justification should be provided as to how it furthers the aims of

'supporting the existing businesses, encouraging new enterprise within the area' which was thepresented feedback from the local population. Furthermore, the proposal for 400 studentbedspaces, when considered alongside other already approved PBSAs, pushes the numberabove the local plan limit for Central Bedminster (of which this location is a part) and could set aprecedent for future disregard of the framework.

8.2 We note a high number of single aspect north facing apartments across the development,accessed by long narrow unlit corridors, which not only offer an unappealing environment but canprovide areas for anti-social behaviour. Such designs go against the cluster requirements whichthe SPD on Urban Living recommends creating a cohesive neighbourhood. There is no provisionin the proposals to combat the possible negative outcomes.

8.3 It is noted that all the affordable housing is to be located in block A - but no firm number hasbeen declared only a target that is sought - not guaranteed. Should this application be approved insome form, we would hope that a number and target in accordance with planning policy, areagreed ahead of this.

9.0 - Sustainability9.1 The framework notes that developments should acknowledge the climate emergencydeclaration and have methods to adapt to climate change. This is broadly supported by theforthcoming local plan with particular relevance to overheating. It is noted that the design of theblocks does not include any form of external shading and by 2050 all apartments will need MVHRto control temperature.- To avoid overheating by 2080, block D will require a re-fit, which begs the question how will thattake place if measures to avoid it cannot be introduced now? To limit embodied carbon we shouldnot be lining up works to be changed in the future if as a society we build new construction itshould be fit for purpose to reflect a longer period of usefulness than 55 years.

9.2 As noted previously most of the accommodation seems to have tall windows - these typicallyincrease the risk of overheating because of the lower windowsill level. A redesign is needed toavoid this.

9.3 If overheating needs to be reduced using electrical or mechanical input, running costs maywell rise, especially concerning, perhaps, for those in affordable units. The forthcoming local plansuggests that cool spaces be designed into a building available for the occupants if they need arefuge from overheating. Is that being considered?

10.0 - Public Realm

10.1 Princess Street and its junction with Whitehouse Street form a very important part of theWhitehouse Street Framework. It is vital that any public realm works maintain a welcoming streetscene that is safe to use at all times. It is not clear if this development will do so in its current form.

10.2 The framework also says that developments are required to preserve and enhance thespecial character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting. Although outside theconservation area the site is close to it and forms an important part of the backdrop to the historicfrontage on York Road and Victoria Park (itself listed as a monument) behind. This is in effect akey site bridging these two important pieces of differing character and its presence on the publicrealm responds to neither of these. We suggest something more in keeping with the scaleenvisaged in the framework, with a relationship to the rhythm and unit size of the available historiccontext would have ore chance of achieving this. In its current form it does not accord with theframework, or the guidance in the SPD on urban living.

10.3 We note the guidance in the Whitehouse Street framework has not been followed with regardto the height to width ratio noted in the document, section 5.4:- A typical height to width (h:w) ratio of around 1:1 to 1:1.5 will be appropriate depending upon thecontext. This development at the lower blocks appears to be delivering around 1.5:1 at the lowerblocks (A, B and first part of C) increasing to 3:1 at the taller part of block C and nearer 4:1 atblock D.

This will likely lead to an overshadowed part of the public realm and the impact in terms of naturallight will lead to a dark and uninviting street, falling short of the aims of the regeneration project.

10.4 Although a wind study has been carried out, we are concerned that the modelling does notreflect any proposed development upon the other side of the street. If this development occurs andhas a similar flat façade to this development the group was especially concerned that this wouldbecome a wind tunnel. Despite a framework with design heights being available for use, thisdevelopment has not considered them within its design, which is far from exemplary and showslittle consideration for the existing residents and workers.Despite it being readily apparent from the framework and the fact that this is a development area,the scheme has little in the way of modelling or canopy design to prepare for this and the designshould be modified.

11.0 Vehicle parking11.1 The on-site parking total is only for 16 parking spaces, which will be available to blue badgeholders only, there is to be no parking for residents with local resident parking schemearrangements in limbo it is not clear how appealing this will make the development for families,who will have to compete with businesses for the available street parking. The residents ofWindmill Hill and Totterdown know the dangers of overcrowded street parking, leading todifficulties such as:- Inability to reach accessible bays,- Access for emergency vehicles,- Access for refuse lorries,- Issues for pedestrian safety and other visibility issues,

- Pavement climbing where cars make pavements difficult to use for people in mobility vehicles,wheelchairs or with pushchairs.

11.2 We also note that other student developments in the area have included specific pull in areasoff the highway for vehicles to pull in and unload without creating congestion and contributing tothe above issues, this does not seem to have been considered here

11.3 We would encourage a re-design with an approach that includes measures to avoid theabove safety issues, family parking spaces (more in keeping with the aims of the framework), dropoff points if student accommodation must be included, some kind of car sharing scheme. All of thiswould foster a better atmosphere for resident and pedestrians as well as vehicle owners.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear [Planning Department/Council],

I am writing to formally object to this proposed residential development. While I strongly support

the thoughtful evolution and growth of our cities, I believe this particular high-rise building does not

align with the character and scale of the local neighbourhood.

One of the defining features of our community is its human-scale streetscape, which fosters

connectivity, walkability, and a welcoming urban environment. The introduction of an 18-storey

structure risks disrupting this balance, creating a space that feels imposing rather than integrated.

While tall buildings can indeed be visually striking from within, their impact at street level can be

overwhelming, leading to a less inviting and more overshadowed urban experience.

Moreover, the development's height raises concerns about how it will interact with the surrounding

architecture and public spaces. A harmonious city should evolve with sensitivity to its existing

character, ensuring that new developments complement rather than dominate their surroundings.

The height and massing of this proposal may not only affect the aesthetic cohesion of the

neighbourhood but also impact sunlight levels, wind patterns, and the overall atmosphere of the

streets below.

I encourage the planning committee to reconsider the scale of this project and explore alternative

designs that better respect the existing urban fabric. A more moderate height or a design that

prioritises thoughtful integration with neighbouring buildings would help maintain the character and

liveability of our city centre while still allowing for growth and development.

Thank you for considering these concerns. I trust that the planning process will take into account

the perspectives of local residents to ensure that our city continues to evolve in a way that

enhances rather than diminishes its unique identity.

Sincerely,

The high rise component of this application is completely out of kilter with itssurroundings, and will be a significant detriment to its immediate surroundings and Victoria Parkincluding the nearby Victoria Park School. The transport proposals are also ill considered.

South Bristol , and the Victoria Prk area specifically has already been subjected toconsiderable redevelopment. The infrastructure is already strained with an inability to meet basicrequirements such as refuse collections, erase or prevent graffiti, and constant rejigging of oneway systems and narrowing of roads. The allocation of yet more land for transitory individuals whocontribute nothing to the local community at the cost of amenities for local rate payers is notappropriate. You have already allowed massive disruption to this area of Bristol. It is time to findalternative sites.

This potential build is completely out of character with the surrounding area. TheWhitehouse Regeneration Framework which was adopted by BCC has been disregarded.It will block iconic views across the city from Victoria Park.No consideration has been given to how infrastructure will cope with the increased population inthe Whitehouse Road area. In particular the existing crossings of the railway and river will beunder even more pressure without any credible plans for improvements to reduce congestion.Other services such as doctors and dentists are already over prescribed.Victoria Park is already left in a disgusting state during the summer months with the existing binsunable to cope with the waste from picnics and barbecues. The seagulls, foxes and crows pillagebags left next to the bins making it hazardous for children, dogs and wildlife. An influx of students,will only add to this problem.

Dear sir/madam,I object to this proposed demolition and development on this site. Our local community does nothave the capacity to cope with a building of this size and of this many new students to the area.

Reasons -- this will cause a lot of disruption to the local school next to the proposed site, due to pollutionfrom construction and also blocking out light for their playing fields.- there is already a strain on local dentists and GP's and this will cause even more of a strain onour local services.- Victoria park is a beloved park and this proposed building will block the beautiful views acrossBristol and the sunsets which many visit on an evening. It could also affect local wildlife and blockout light and ruin the skyline for those visiting the park.- This favours corporations and students over the community and much needed local affordablehousing in the area.

Aside from ruining an iconic view of Victoria Park over the city, this development doesnothing to serve the needs of the community. We do not need more student housing, we needfamily housing and a high density development like this will do nothing to create long term homes.

I strongly object to this application.A 20 storey building overlooking a school is a crazy idea and shows no thought for the localcommunity from a safeguarding perspective.The area is historically low rise so this is also out of character.

The adjacent park is also an overstretched resource which has noticeably been impacted byrecent developments. I'm not against developments happening for further housing in the area butit needs to be alongside investment in amenities, such as toilets and litter collection in the parkand community spaces which manage the impacts of these developments.

Too many high rise developments are being proposed for south Bristol. The area cannotcope without more parking provision, let alone doctors etc.

Objections for this proposal-

- could cause considerable disruption to the local school and on-going issues to their view and useof their school grounds.- there is not enough local services available to accommodate this site (number of students) ascurrently GP's and dentists are already under considerable pressure in the area.- Ruin the skyline of Victoria park and especially the sunset views which many residents and localsenjoy in the evening.- prioritising corporation and students over local needs such as affordable housing for locals.

Object as it1. impacts on our precious green space2. Increase in overcrowding and congestion3. Imbalance of development over community interests4. No real consultation with community

I am absolutely not against development and recognise the need to build housing butthis building is far too tall. It is a xomplete eyesore. The infrastructure is not in place to support thebuilding.

Object as it1. impacts on our precious green space2. Increase in overcrowding and congestion3. Imbalance of development over community interests4. No real consultation with community

Yet another unsightly development, unsympathetic to the Victorian architecture in thearea. Just as with the new development on Malago Road, this development is too tall, blockingeven more of the views from Victoria Park. There is insufficient infrastructure in the area to handleanother such large development - not enough school places, insufficient access to GPs anddentists, not enough parking, congested roads, unreliable public transport. Too much of thisdevelopment is for student accommodation and not enough affordable housing for families. Weneed houses in this area, not apartment buildings.

Object as it1. impacts on our precious green space2. Increase in overcrowding and congestion3. Imbalance of development over community interests4. No real consultation with community

Far to big and towers over local residents

There are far too many multi storey buildings going up in this area, 19 storeys is far toohigh and the local area simply cannot accommodate any further development

I think the proposed housing is disgusting. It is not in keeping with the surrounding areaat all and spoils the view from South Bristol from almost every angle.

The proposed height of the buildings far exceeds that of any other in the area whichwould dominate and impose over the primary school specifically. I agree the area needsregeneration, but not at the cost the well being of the children who live and school close by. Sucha volume of transitory population could jeopardise the feeling of safety and security which the localcommunity is trying to foster

There is already so much student housing in this area. Too much- and much isunoccupied. This development would ruin the skyline and looks like a complete eyesore.

I strongly object to the proposed 19-storey tower block due to its significant anddetrimental impact on our community. The scale of the development would lead to seriousovercrowding in an already densely populated area, placing unsustainable pressure on localservices, infrastructure, and transport. Increased traffic and congestion would not only affect dailylife but also raise safety concerns for residents. This type of high-rise, high-density constructionrepresents unbalanced development, inconsistent with the character and needs of ourneighbourhood. Most concerning of all, the tower's proximity to our cherished local park threatensto overshadow and undermine one of the few remaining green spaces we have-damaging both itsbeauty and the wellbeing it provides to residents.

Formal Objection to Planning Proposal - Application Ref: 25/11778/FI am writing to formally object to the planning proposal for a 19-storey building Land South OfPrincess Street Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AG, application reference 25/11778/F. I strongly believethis development is inappropriate and detrimental to our community, particularly concerning theviews from Victoria Park and the well-being of local residents and schoolchildren.Grounds for Objection:1. Unacceptable Height and Overdevelopment:The proposed 19-storey building is entirely out of scale with the existing character of thesurrounding area. Its excessive height will profoundly and negatively impact the Bristol skyline,significantly obstructing the cherished views from Victoria Park. Furthermore, the sheer density ofthis development, directly opposite a primary school, constitutes an egregious overdevelopment ofthe site and is wholly inappropriate for this residential context.2. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services:The addition of an estimated 1,400+ new residents will place an intolerable and unsustainableburden on already critically overstretched local services. Access to GP practices and dentalservices in this area is already exceptionally difficult, with residents facing extensive waiting times.The proposal offers no viable solutions or contributions to mitigate this significant additionalpressure, demonstrating a profound disregard for the existing infrastructure capacity.3. Inadequate Parking Provision and Increased Congestion:The provision of only 16 parking spaces for a development of this size is completely unrealisticand irresponsible. This severe under-provision will inevitably lead to a substantial increase in on-street parking in already congested residential areas, exacerbating traffic flow issues and

significantly compromising road safety, particularly for children walking to the nearby primaryschool.4. Detrimental Impact on School Environment:The proposed building will loom over and dominate our local primary school. The proximity andscale of the development will result in significant noise and disruption during the constructionphase, and once completed, will create an oppressive environment for young children. This isfundamentally unsuitable for a primary school setting and raises serious concerns regarding theamenity, safety, and well-being of pupils and staff.5. Excessive Density and Character Erosion:The proposed density of this development far exceeds the recommended guidelines for innerurban areas. This level of intensification is completely out of keeping with the establishedcharacter of the neighbourhood and risks creating long-term issues related to overcrowding,reduced quality of life, and a severe deficit of local resources.In conclusion, this planning proposal fundamentally fails to integrate with our community anddemonstrably disregards the profound negative impacts it will have on local residents, criticalinfrastructure, and the daily lives of schoolchildren. I urge you to refuse this application.

I wish to object to the proposed development on land south of Princess Street,Bedminster (Planning Application 25/11778/F) on the grounds of its excessive scale, negativeimpact on heritage and townscape, environmental and health consequences, and its failure tomeet the long-term needs of the local community - although I do acknowledge the broader needfor new housing in Bristol.

Scale, density, and Lliveability

This proposal represents extreme overdevelopment, with a density of approximately 530 dwellingsper hectare - more than four times the optimal level of 120 dph recommended by the Urban LivingSPD for this area. Block D, a 19-storey student tower, is wholly out of scale with the local contextand breaches the height guidance of the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework, whichenvisages 10 storeys as the upper limit for a "contextually high" building. These high densitiescompromise the liveability of the scheme, reducing access to daylight and outdoor space andrisking poor mental and physical health outcomes for future residents

Impact on heritage and views

The development would cause low, but still "less than substantial" harm to multiple Grade II listedbuildings and to the Bedminster Conservation Area, as acknowledged in the applicant's ownHeritage Impact Assessment. This includes significant harm to views from Victoria Park, acherished historic green space that provides some of the best panoramic views in the city. The

tower would intrude upon and dominate these views, degrading their quality and the experience ofthe park - a view explicitly protected in the Whitehouse Street Framework and Urban Living SPD.

Environmental and health considerations

Although the Sustainability Statement claims a reduction in operational emissions (60.98%)through energy efficiency and renewable technology, this is undermined by the environmental costof such high massing and intensive use. The proposal adds pressure to an already under-resourced area - local services (schools, GP practices, parks) are at capacity. The Health ImpactAssessment largely avoids quantifying these indirect community impacts.

Furthermore, the lack of a robust strategy for managing active travel infrastructure and vehicledisplacement (given the "car-free" claim) risks increased congestion and emissions onsurrounding streets.

Community and inclusivity

While the application includes affordable housing, it is disappointing that these homes areconfined to a single block. This separation contradicts best practice and risks stigmatisation andunequal experiences for residents. Moreover, the proposal prioritises Purpose-Built StudentAccommodation (PBSA) - 400 units - in an area already experiencing an over-concentration ofstudent housing. This undermines long-term community cohesion, especially as there is growingevidence that student demand is flattening and many PBSA blocks elsewhere are under-occupied.

Conclusion

I support the principle of housing-led regeneration and agree that brownfield sites like this mustcontribute to addressing Bristol's housing need. However, this proposal fails to do so in a way thatis sustainable, sensitive, or equitable. We must not allow pressure for volume to override theprinciples of placemaking, wellbeing, and design quality. I urge the planning committee to rejectthis application and invite a revised proposal that delivers genuinely mixed housing at a scaleappropriate to the site and surrounding area - one that contributes to a healthy, inclusive, andresilient neighbourhood for the long term.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at Princess Street, Bedminster(Application 25/11778/F).

My family and I live nearby and are proud to be part of this community. We are raising our childrenhere, and like many local families, we spend time in Victoria Park, walk and cycle through theneighbourhood, and shop on East Street. We want to see thoughtful development that strengthensour area - not something that risks overwhelming it.

While I understand the urgent need for new housing in Bristol, this proposal goes too far in termsof height and density. The 19-storey student block is particularly out of place and would dominateviews from the park and surrounding streets. It also risks putting further pressure on alreadystretched local services like schools and GP practices, with no clear plan for how these will besupported.

I'm also concerned that the design separates affordable homes into a single block and includes avery high number of student flats. This does not feel like a recipe for a balanced or inclusiveneighbourhood.

We want to see new homes that contribute positively to the long-term future of Bedminster -buildings that reflect the scale and character of the area, support local families, and help create ahealthy, inclusive, and resilient community for generations to come. I urge the council to reject thisproposal and push for a better version that genuinely puts people and place first.

Far to high. Far to dense without adequate facilities

Although agreeing that more housing needs to be built, a development which includes a19 storey student accommodation block is completely out of character with the local area and isnot prioritising community needs (affordable family homes). This development will dominateVictoria Park which is a place of green refuge away from the urban life - so important for the well-being of the community it serves. The light pollution, noise pollution (and not to mention thepollution caused during the build) will impact the local community, especially the primary school itwill tower over.The idea of it being car free is idealistic and will greatly impact the Totterdown and Windmill Hillcommunity where the streets are already struggling. Where are the plans at the design stage todevelop public transport and to cope with the demands on the already stretched local servicessuch as schooling, doctors, dentists?This design does not add to the character of Totterdown, or the unique identity of Bristol but willhugely take away from it.

Will impact on precious green space.Will cause overcrowding and congestion.It's an unbalanced development.Community voices have been ignored, going against the consultation process that was meant toprioritise local voices in the development of the Whitehouse Trading Estate.

Too big, will ruin the neighborhood. Ruins school outlook. Ruins park view.

I cycle through Victoria park and across whitehouse lane to drop my child at nursery.The roads around the proposed development are atrocious for traffic in the morning. Having beenusing the nursery for 4 years, it has got significantly worse over these past 4 years. Itsunsustainable to keep developing areas without improving transport links.

I do not necessarily disagree with student resi as I believe students are beneficial to the city, butthere is already a student highrise adjacent to bedminster green. There surely could be a moreimaginative , community driven development solution.

High rise appearance not in keeping with area, will hugely overshadow the school andpark. It will ruin skyline views from the park which will destroy the atmosphere for the wide varietyof users. I regularly run around the park and see multiple people gathering to watch the sunset,this view will be destroyed.

Traffic increase will be detrimental to air quality for nearby school and there are not adequate roador parking facilities to support increase.

Also lack of community services eg. GP surgeries to support scale of development.

Inappropriate scale and aesthetic for this area.

This would be a significant eyesore, blocking one of Bristol's best views. Studenthousing is increasingly encroaching on south Bristol, despite being far from the actual university,and undermining local communities. Further, these developments are lengthy and thinking of theBath Road development (ongoing) subject to major delays. This doesn't solve problems, it adds tothem.

I worry that there has been no consideration for the added cost of living withoutadequate resources or infrastructure for the local area.

There is already a huge strain on schools, doctors surgeries and transportation. Also to build onan area so close to wildlife habitat is not suitable

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

- significant negative impact on the local community - this is not fully considered by the applicant

- impact on lightThe day light and sunlight report does not provide any assessment of the impacts to the loss oflight to the park area adjacent to St Mary Redcliffe Primary School. This areas is well used byparkgoers as it catches the sunlight. Loss of light in this space will force users to other parts of thealready crowded park, impacting the use of sport areas with them being used for social gatheringsnot sport. The sun and light should be preserved in this area of the park ensuring amenity value isretained. The report lacks information and is not in accordance with Section 4.17 which states:Sunlight should be assessed on the equinox (21 March) to main back gardens of houses,allotments, parks and playing fields, children's playgrounds, outdoor swimming pools, sitting-outareas such as in public squares, and focal points for views, such as a group of monuments orfountains.

The day light and sunlight report should also consider the primary school as a receptor, as statedin the BRE guidance. The development would have a significant impact on the school.

Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA)This fails to fully consider the views from the key location of Victoria Park and the viewing plaque,this is located near the top of the slope and associated amenity area, it should consider the whole

of the grassed bank along with the views from the primary school including playgrounds whichcould become over looked.

Transport assessmentThis does not consider the potential implications of the scheme either individually or cumulativelyon the wider area. The statement within paragraph 7.4.13 is not justified or enforceable, theapplicant will have no means of assessing or determining whether any of their tenants havebrought a vehicle to the local area. The only means of demonstrating no impact elsewhere is forBCC to bring forward a residents parking scheme for the local area funded in perpetuity (for the100 year design life of the scheme as stated in the Flood Risk Assessment and the EnvironmentAgency) by the applicant and others in the Whitehouse regeneration area. Without such measuresthe scheme will have a significant adverse effect on existing local residents. This should besecured by a section 106 agreement otherwise the scheme does not comply with Paragraph 109 cof the NPPF.7.4.13 The 16 proposed car parking spaces will be allocated to pre-determined units. Theremaining units will be rented out on the basis that the tenant cannot own and/or bring a vehicle tothe site. A restrictive covenant agreement can be included within the tenancy agreements toensure that residents of certain units to not own and/or bring a car to park within the local area

Impacts to Victoria ParkThere is already noticeable adverse impacts to the amenity value of Victoria Park currently beingfelt. The increased use of the park by students has impacted the use of the park space. There isconflict between younger children who are unable to play on sports pitches. The area cannot beused by children and young adults together. If sports pitches are taken by BBQs and socialdrinking there is nowhere else for them to go in the par.

The park has been damaged by the increase in use of disposable BBQs already this year withmultiple burnt patches across it's entirety.

The area is a "Urban Dark Sky Site" . There is also potential for light spillages from the new livingaccommodation to impact on this. More light will be used and at higher elevations which willchange the light conditions within the park.

There is already an increase in litter in the park. Frequent overflowing of bins.

This development will result in an increase in users which should be managed and contributionssecured under Section 106 agreement to enhance the park and maintenance, especially as thestudents will not contribute to the funding of the park via council tax contributions. This shouldinclude enhancements to the play areas to offset pressures in other parts of the park andimprovements to the toilets to ensure that they are available and welcoming to the new users ofthe park to avoid people having to use the wooded areas as an informal toilet. The scheme is

currently considered to be uncompliant with paragraph 2.b and 98 a of the NPPF.

Impacts to St Mary Redcliffe Primary SchoolThe shading, overlooking and capacity of St Mary Redcliffe Primary School needs furtherattention. The development will significantly impact the school as it directly over looks it.

There is no capacity in the school for increase in potential student numbers or the area to extendwithin the school.

The applicant should also give consideration to the construction phase impacts of the school withmany students walking along Whitehouse street, the safety of which should be secured andappropriate parking for parent drop off / collection provided, there is currently significant pressuresand conflicts in this, which has been ongoing for several years. The safety of the children andother users should not impacted by the construction of this scheme.

Flood risk assessmentThe applicants assessment of flood risk is not in accordance with policy as set out by theEnvironment Agency's response, the scheme design should be refined once a full assessment iscompleted.

Of course it is an eye sore, the building didn't need to be so tall. I've also read thecompany is owned by a Hong Kong based firm. So it doesn't appear the 'revenue' created from itwill be redistributed back into the local economy.

BAsed on how quickly the building was erected, it seems unlikely that the quality of the buildingand subsequent living conditions would be of a high quality. It seems like a huge investmentopportunity for a few individuals rather than an attempt to support the community with housing.

It also completely diregards the view for nearby residents.

I understand developing on brownfield sites. This is not a brownfield site, it's acommercial and industrial estate with lots of viable local businesses. Bristol is turning into a gianthousing estate where you are pushing businesses out. What's the point in living in a city any morethat has no facilities and just houses? Also where are people going to work?No one's going to want to live in a city where they have to commute outside the city to get to work.

The current students that have taken up residence in Bedminster in the recent development suckup a great deal of infrastructure- Ie using the local park (with barbecues everywhere and burningholes on the ground), doctors without paying a penny in council tax. Really not good for the localcommunity.This feels like the local community needs are not being met and it's all for greed.I've lived here for over 20 years and probably won't be here much longer because of thethoughtless planning that harms our local community

This will definitely effect local residents with a huge building blocking light and viewsnotwithstanding the amount of increased noise. It's a carbuncle not at all in keeping with the areaand far too greedily big. Residents will have cars, another increase in an already packed area.

This has no consideration of the local framework agreement created by Bristol council.There have been many studies that show high rise contributes to poor mental health, high densitycan be achieved in other ways. It also has a significant impact to the local school. Not just in termsof disruption and pollution during construction, but the impact on drop offs and pickups for parentsin a busy area. I would urge councillors to reject this profit making scheme in favour of one thatoffers benefit to both the residents and wider community long term.

I object to this planning application for the following reasons:1. Conflict with Local Planning Framework and extensive community engagement:The proposaldisregards the community-led Whitehouse Street Development Framework and local feedback.The extensive consultation process resulted in the creation of a detailed framework, which set outclear parameters. It must contribute (and not detract from) the vibrant and varied local community.The scale and massing, together with the student-dominant housing, contradict the vision forcohesive, environmentally sensitive regeneration of the area.2. Impact on Heritage and Views:The development would intrude on the panoramic view fromVictoria Park, particularly affecting sightlines to the Grade I listed St Mary Redcliffe Church. Theproposal would contribute to the erosion of Bristol's historic skyline and the character of heritageassets across the city due to poor design and excessive height, especially when considered interms of cumulative impact of recent completions or permissions in the south Bristol (BedminsterGreen). Bristol's topography contributes to the city's character, with layers of buildings and greenspaces making the city visually rich as well as providing opportunities for long distance viewsacross the city and to the surrounding landscape.3. Poor Architectural Design:The proposal has a bulky form inconsistent with local context andlacking in positive design responses to character and therefore in conflict with local and nationalplanning policy. The proposal would undermine the green backdrop and fails to deliver qualitypublic realm that adds to the overall quality of the area (Ref NPPF paragraph 135)4. Housing Type / Mix:The delivery of yet more significant levels of student accommodation, doesnot address Bristol's broader housing needs. This imbalance would strain local services andreduce community diversity, increasing pressure on Victoria Park (which is already suffering from

a lack of investment) and healthcare facilities. This is likely to impact negatively on communitycohesion and wellbeing (Ref NPPF para 135).

In summary, whilst I support redevelopment of brownfield sites, this proposal falls way short ofwhat we should be insisting on. This is a highly sustainable location to deliver a newneighbourhood in south Bristol - and it must be one that we are confident will add a new andpositive layer to our vibrant city that we can be proud of for current and future generations. Thisproposal falls short of this expectation that must be placed on development in our city. We need tobe more ambitious. I therefore object to the proposal in its current form.

This has no consideration of the local framework agreement created by Bristol council.There have been many studies that show high rise contributes to poor mental health, high densitycan be achieved in other ways. It also has a significant impact to the local school. Not just in termsof disruption and pollution during construction, but the impact on drop offs and pickups for parentsin a busy area. I would urge councillors to reject this profit making scheme in favour of one thatoffers benefit to both the residents and wider community long term.

Another crazy decision! Total lack of parking , totally not in keeping with the surroundsand no thought about parking.

I make this objection in my capacity as a resident of the lower Totterdown area, and aparent with two children at St Mary Redcliffe Primary school. I support the regeneration ofbrownfield sites and have carefully considered the many perspectives put forward in theconsultation documents. I object to the overbearing nature of this scheme, in particular theexcessive height of the proposed development. I believe this will be overbearing and imposingwhen sighted from the local green space (Victoria Park) as well as from the primary school itself. Ihave concerns about parking in an already densely populated neighbourhood - where no provisionis made as part of the development, future residents will park in nearby streets. I also challengethe purported minimal impact of the development on 'under-utilised' local public services; there arenot enough dentists offering NHS care nearby at present, and my GP surgery struggles to offerenough appointments for those already registered. Whilst I support entirely the need for theWhitehouse Street regeneration, I object to this development being the answer we need forreasonable and proportionate housing of any type (be it affordable, student or other). I thereforemust ask the planning officers to reject this application.

Though in principle I would support the development of this area, I wholly andcompletely object to the size and use of the 19 story tower block being proposed.This tower will permanently damage the feel of the surrounding area, throw immense amounts oflight pollution towards Victoria park and, as student accommodation, introduce another mass ofstudents to the area who contribute little to the community and nothing to council coffers.In regards to the wider application, it is a shame that the 'affordable' elements of the developmentare sectioned off at one end, presumably through fear they may affect the market rates of theremaining properties.The development is characterless, it lacks any uniqueness and delivers yet another blow to Bristolbeing anything other than a copy and paste of every other urban area, the architects should beashamed.

High-rise building not in keeping with local area

This will have a significant impact to the local school and community!

The building will overlook school which I feel is unsafe from a safeguarding perspective.

The construction will impact many factors for children at the school, local residents andbusinesses e.g. air pollution and noise pollution.Concerns re. Parking/road closures will make school drop offs even more difficult for those thathave to drive. Will also make it more difficult for local residents to park.

The view that many enjoy will be ruined. Potentially effecting the Mental Health of locals that findpeace on the mound overlooking Bristol.

Once completed there will be additional strain and/or insufficient access to primary healthcare.

I couldn't object to this application more. The area needs housing for the homeless andaffordable for public sector workers etc. - not more accommodation for privileged students. Thereis already more than ample student tower blocks in this area, enough to house over 1000students. More students will turn the area into a mono-culture.

The building is ugly, way too high and will stick out like a sore thumb. Well above the 9/10 storeylimit agreed for the area.

No social housing in the proposal - yet again - none of the applications for this area( most of whichhave been approved) have included anywhere near the legal requirement for social housing.

The whole community is heartily sick of not being listened to and having these ugly monstrositiesof buildings imposed on them - all of the benefit for the developers and the greedy university andall of the disbenefit for the community which already lives here - we have had enough!

I am a local resident and object to the proposal. I agree with many of the objectionreasons given by numerous others, particularly regarding diminishing local amenity, stronglynegative effects on a well loved park which is a designated urban dark sky site. There arenumerous other valid objections raised which appear to contradict BCC adopted planning policy.

I am an architect with experience of working on developer driven schemes and would like to offerthe insights it has given me and focus on explaining why I believe this scheme at up to 19 storeysis significant over development.

Firstly I believe the area is appropriate for development, at a high but reasonable density and witha reasonable maximum storey limit. From other comments I believe this was agreed in thecommunity consultation aspect of the framework which suggested a 10 storey maximum. Bristolhas a history of successful developments like this such as Wapping wharf or Finzels reach whichare well appreciated and offer high densities. Many well loved cities e.g. Paris, Barcelona, Vienna,all provide high densities from an urban historic fabric of circa 6 storeys.

The tallest part of the scheme is 19 storeys, the second is 14 storeys, and the remainder are 6storeys. The plan of the overall scheme and the lower section appear reasonable, however theheight and mass of taller parts are vastly out of scale to any context and overbearing. This is bestillustrated in page 86 of the design and access statement showing a verified view from Pylle HillCrescent where the building fills half the sky. Bear in mind that the view is taken from roof level ontop of a local hill and the overbearing is still such, due to the height of the tower and the deep plan

with a long elevation comprising 12 student resi units plus a shared kitchen.

I believe the overall unit count is a vast over development and driven primarily by developerswanting to maximise profit from the site, which may have been traded multiple times before thisapplication, with each trade necessitating the new developer to try to deliver more units from thesite. This is hardly surprising but places huge importance on the role of the council as commercialnecessity means the developers will not be policing themselves, only the council can do that. Thetendency towards overdevelopment is also cumulative as developers will be learning what theycan get through planning and will be betting on that for their next land purchase.

The tallest section of the proposal is 19 storeys, which is the same as the 1981 Castlemead toweron castle park which is currently the second tallest tower in Bristol, only a lot deeper in plan so willactually be much more overbearing. I am from Bristol and can honestly say that in my many yearshere I rarely hear anything positive about that building, or indeed any of our other highrisebuildings (apart from the old church spires).

I am confident that if this scheme is built as proposed that 99% of the public would consider itdetrimental to our city, primarily due to the size and mass of the tall bits. Not that this is even thearchitects fault, they will have been given a required number of units, arranged the units on anefficient floor plan, building regulations pretty much dictate the individual unit layout and likelywindow positions, then they will extrude the building as many storeys as needed to deliver thedevelopers requirement.

This has led to a uniform vertical emphasis which does not look unlike Castlemead tower, only inbrick and with a few horizontal bands which according to the design and access statementsupposedly echo the Wills memorial building. Just for the record I think this building's plain brickynew London vernacular is a better choice than a jazzy metal and plastic style but whatevercladding is chosen a massive part of the sky will disappear for all those who reside within aconsiderable radius.

Perhaps I need to move to Clifton where such a development would not be allowed but I can'tafford to.

Development is out of character with surrounding properties. Tower is too tall and willovershadow surrounding properties and spoil the skyline.It will severely scar the view for many hundreds of properties.The development is not suitable for families and there is insufficient infrastructure development tosupport such huge high density plans.

Development is out of character with surrounding properties. Tower is too tall and willovershadow surrounding properties and spoil the skyline.It will severely scar the view for many hundreds of properties.The development is not suitable for families and there is insufficient infrastructure development tosupport such huge high density plans.

Whilst I support the need for more housing, I object to the current proposal for thefollowing reasons:

The structure (s) would impact on the skyline and impinge natural light on neighbouring residentialareas and the school and park close by.

Insufficient green areas (Victoria Park close by are already heavily used by Windmill Hill andTotterdown estates). And the green areas in the plans are insufficient. More is needed for thehealth and well-being for the community.

Do we realistically need more student accommodation when other developments close by egFeeder Road, City centre where student accommodation is already earmarked. Evidence is thatthere will be a reduction in student population and not an increase despite the new university siteby Temple Meads.

Anticipated parking and traffic issues as well as insufficient disabled parking facilities for the no ofresidents envisaged .

Concern with the appearance of the building which looks like an eyesore. And not in keeping withthe bright, colourful residential buildings in the local communities. Doesn't compliment existingarchitecture.

Additional strain on local services, schools, dentists, GP's given there are other housingdevelopment proposals in the immediate area and no evidence of increase in social welfare,health and education.

What is going to happen to existing businesses which are already in demand in the local area andused by Totterdown and Windmill Hill estates.

I couldn't object to this application more. The area needs housing for the homeless andaffordable for public sector workers etc. - not more accommodation for privileged students. Thereis already more than ample student tower blocks in this area, enough to house over 1000students. More students will turn the area into a mono-culture.

The building is ugly, way too high and will stick out like a sore thumb. Well above the 9/10 storeylimit agreed for the area.

No social housing in the proposal - yet again - none of the applications for this area( most of whichhave been approved) have included anywhere near the legal requirement for social housing.

The whole community is heartily sick of not being listened to and having these ugly monstrositiesof buildings imposed on them - all of the benefit for the developers and the greedy university andall of the disbenefit for the community which already lives here - we have had enough!

I strongly oppose this planning application. I live by Victoria Park which is a historic parkand garden and this development would conflict with Policy BCS22 of the Local Plan and have ahuge negative impact on the park and and all the people who live near it or who visit the park. Theproposed development is opposite a popular view point, which is a treasured landmark and it willdisrupt the panorama across the city from the south which is enjoyed by so many on a daily basis.It is always full of people who go to enjoy the sunset and hot air balloons and the proposals wouldput an end to that as all they'd be able to see is lots of unsightly buildings that are so much tallerthan any other buildings in the surrounding area. It would harm the setting of a number of highlydesignated heritage assets across the city, their individual and combined settings contribute totheir significance, and define a sense of place. It will disrupt the integrity of Bristol's distinctive andhistoric city skyline including the wonderful Grade 1 listed Church of St Mary Redcliffe, the mostsignificant building in South Bristol and of huge importance. Around the city at key and historicviewpoints where the skyline is experienced, the proposed development would become visible.

Development at Bedminster Green has already broken the sky line and incrementally diminishedthis vista and the proposed development will exacerbate the harm. I'm aware that some form ofsignificant change in the area is inevitable as it is in a 'core regeneration area'. It requiresdevelopment that contributes to a mix of uses; preserves and enhances Bedminster conservationarea and its setting; reflects Bristol's urban character through high quality well designedenvironments and this is not any of those! With all the recent development and proposeddevelopments such as this one, the local population is due to increase by 44%, this will place ahuge strain on already overstretched local services. It is also mostly car free with hardly any

parking provided for residents as the developer says that none of the residents would be carowners/have access to a car, which is simply never the case, so then where do the developerspropose they park their vehicles?

The development density is significantly higher (530dph) than the optimum density suggested inthe Urban Living SPD for inner urban areas (120dph). There was an extensive communityconsultation completed that has been completely ignored.

To conclude it will have a negative impact on traffic, on the environment, on neighbours livingconditions (noise; overbearing impact; overlooking, privacy); negative impact in character andappearance (design, materials, scale and massing etc); negative impact on local amenities andservices which are already stretched resources e.g healthcare and the park, parking and anegative impact on the developments residents, there is nothing positive that I can say at all aboutthis proposal.

Impact on green space

This will have a huge negative impact on our green spaces, the park is heavily usedthere is not enough space for this many additional students. We love the skyline from Victoriapark, please don't take it away, overcrowding and congestion is a huge concern here.

The building is extremely unattractive and would obstruct some fantastic views of ourbeautiful city. It will dominate the landscape in a very unpleasant and unfitting way, it does not lookcohesive with the surroundings. Bristol does not need any more build to lets and studentaccommodation, do not let these greedy developers price out whole communities our of theirhome town!

Impact on green spaces: it will cause excessive light pollution in an urban dark sky area.The tower block will impact the skyline from across the park which contributes to the uniquecharacter of the area. Overcrowding and congestion: it will result in increased traffic in the area.The area is already under pressure due to all of the developments and the changes in the roadsystems. Philip street will become dangerous with more traffic as it is a main route betweenresidential areas and bedminster and many children travel along it as there is a nursery andprimary school. It is frequently necessary to walk in the road as the pathways are too narrow forthe footfall, making it dangerous already. Unless having a car is prohibited and enforced increasedpressure will be placed on the surrounding communities which are already really struggling.Unbalanced development: priority is being given to students and corporate interests who aretransient and do not have a long term stake in Bristol. Community Voices are being ignored: planshave failed to respect extensive consultation feedback.

I object to the height of these buildings. They are also too high density for the area. Toomany people crammed in to an area that is already being completely over developed and theplans are not joined up across the area. Victoria Park will be overshadowed by the developmentparticularly from 'sunset hill' where local residents go to watch the sun set over the city. Greedydevelopers will live well from the student rents whilst not giving back to the community. No parkingwill cause chaos to all the surrounding neighbourhoods. No style to the buildings, just ugly blocks.No benefit to the local community with any provision for infrastructure, dentists, doctors for allthese people! The area was once densely populated with Victorian Terraces BUT they were 2stories high only! People don't want to live in blocks of flats as proven in the 60's. Money fromrents will go to private developers not back into the community, that will suffer from overcrowding,overshadowing and have to live with such ugliness.

I strongly oppose this planning application. Victoria Park is a historic park and gardenand this development would conflict with Policy BCS22 of the Local Plan and have a negativeimpact on the park. It is overbearing, the scale and mass will massively negatively impact theviews from Victoria Park. I live next to the park and my children attend St Mary Redcliffe primaryschool which is right next to the site and I am concerned about the negative impact it will have onthe park, the residents, the school, the children and the staff for many reasons - flood risk,increased traffic, air quality, noise and health impacts to name but a few. The development atBedminster Green has already had a negative impact on the area and disrupted the sky line,incrementally diminishing the vista and this proposed development will only disrupt it furthercausing more harm.

The local population is due to increase by 44% with all these developments and the area andservices simply won't be able to cope with such an increase with local services already at breakingpoint. They haven't included parking in the scheme, ignorantly assuming that there won't be anycars but that is never the case, so those cars then have to find somewhere to park, placing morstrain on the local area. There was a community consultation and they haven't taken any of thefeedback from that on board, in fact they have completely ignored it and done the opposite. Istrongly oppose this development.

Whilst not against redevelopment of run down areas I have to register my objections tothis proposal.

The high rise building proposed at 21 storeys is completely out of context with the local area andtotally unacceptable. It will dominate the landscape and have a negative effect on the area. Thereis a plaque within Victoria Park celebrating the view out from this corner and the proposeddevelopment and the tower block with complete destroy this much loved and well used space,which has such a positive impact on mental health and wellbeing.

Whilst I can understand the need to promote a reduction in car use, a lack of parking spaceswithin the development is totally unrealistic and without addition parking being created, theincrease in vehicles will add to the already desperate shortage of parking spaces the neighbouredalready suffers.

I am extremely worried about the plans for this development.

The size of the development is completely over the top and unnecessary. Obviously I canunderstand developers wanting to make as much profit as possible and hence pushing for asmany units as possible but there must be consideration to how a massive development like thiswill impact the area.

The height of the building is really unacceptable for this area! It will completely overpowereverything. The openness that we all crave in cities that the wonderful Victoria Park is actuallyoffering to residents and visitors alike. A rare privilege taken away from the community and forwhat? For some massive firm that is already making millions to make more millions! The area willbe destroyed! These things are irreversible! It's so devastating to think that this is an actualpossibility.

The number of residents it's going to add to the area goes well beyond the optimal density ofdwellings in an area.

And also, as I'm sure you've heard time and time again, for many other applications, there are justnot enough amenities to service all this people. Where are the GP surgeries? The schools? etc etc

Plans for an entire development to be car free is simply not realistic. We're already feeling theeffect of that in our neighbourhood from other, similar developments in the BS3 area. It's

impossible to find parking in our neighbourhood, where we have never had issues like this before.If a development of this size goes ahead it absolutely has to provide parking facilities, such asunderground parking or similar.

I object with all my might to this thoughtless development. I understand the need for more housingbut this is just completely greedy and unnecessary!! Please don't let it happen.

Objection to development

I object to this proposed development on the following issues:The proposed tower blocks (all blocks in the development, A-D) are fundamentally out of keepingwith the area and community. All blocks proposed are too high, especially blocks C and D, buteven the 6 storey builds are far too oppressive and not in any way in keeping with the character ofthe immediate or wider area. To suggest that this would be a good site to build some of the tallestbuildings in the whole city entirely disregards Bedminster's local character as a suburban localewith its own distinct culture, strong identity and sense of community, adjacent to, rather than partof the city centre- a fact that the developers seem to miss or choose to ignore and instead basetheir estimations on what would be fitting in an area such as BS1.The developers clearly have no regard for the local community, using us only as a selling point intheir proposed development, rather than ensuring that their contribution enhances the area forexisting and future residents.An historically impoverished and, specifically, slum area (one of the worst in the country for sometime), this development would be pushing this part of Bedminster back into the overcrowded anddark living conditions which it has been steadily and successfully moving away from.

Sunlight and daylight- per the developers' own report on this, the buildings themselves aredesigned with below acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight for around 1 in 6 (18%) habitablerooms and over half (55%) of habitable rooms, respectively, due to the excessive height of thebuilds. They argue this is acceptable being an inner city urban area, and base their comparisons

on City Centre precedents, and more specifically those considered acceptable in inner cityLondon, which this part of Bedminster is in no way comparable to.

Noise pollution (in building and once inhabited)The provision of roof-top residents' social spaces is likely to have a particularly detrimental effecton the local existing population in terms of noise pollution, including and especially, late at night,due to the ease of sound-travel across the park. It would be preferable to create green plantedrooftops on all blocks, designed for carbon sequestration, without amenity spaces, beyondalarmed fire escape routes.

The development, and the large student population, in particular, has the likely potential to draw amore city-centre type nightlife into the suburb, causing extremely significant disruption to the quietenjoyment of existing residents homes and the quiet enjoyment of newly built homes. Please notethat the student block currently proposed would be one of the largest student accommodationblocks across the city, and whereas students renting in scattered HMOs or much smallerapartment blocks are more easily absorbed into the local community, the effect of such a largeand thus harmful concentration of students being suddenly added into the local mix would behighly detrimental to existing residents of the larger nearby area- again the developers' argumentof precedent in favour of this high concentration is not based on similar suburban conditions(Small Street in BS1, i.e. City Centre).

Increased traffic- during construction and habitation- the suggestion that the developers wouldhave any control over preventing new residents from parking their cars in surrounding areas isclearly unrealistic. The lack of parking is therefore an inevitable issue in an area where parking isalready difficult.Effect on park- local use of the park as an amenity historically gifted for the benefit of localresidents (and now designated as a "Local Historic Park" and an "Important Open Space" perrelevant policies) especially , but not limited to: dark sky site, sunset/ music festival/balloon picnicgathering area, overlooked and overlooking, It includes a well-loved and historic skylinecontributing to the wellbeing of many thousands of people already using the park.

The Park already suffers with overcrowding and associated litter issues on sunny days, butaddition of 400 students (large noisy gatherings, and with pontential for increase in alcohol/druguse) plus further 250 flats-worth of non-student occupiers, would spoil the park to some significantextent for existing residents.Unbalanced development mix- too many student flats, not sufficient proportion of affordablehousing,

Impact on local services- already over saturated for appointment availability at local GP surgeries,schools- particularly nearest secondary schools, SMRT, and Ashton Park.Impact on SMR primary- during demolition, building and long term effects of children beingoverlooked, large transient (student) population v.close to primary (with many children and

teenagers walking to/from school unaccompanied, including many primary age children),safeguarding issue. Structure trapping more diesel train pollution toward the school, whichcurrently has reasonable air circulation around it considering the location of the railway.Impact on City farm- a highly valued and well used community project and resource and and cityfarm nursery.Air pollution and blocking more open sky and daylight for the City Farm and it's nursery, which isalready suffering from the enormous new development to its opposite side.Please note that the impact on the skyline outside of summer months will also be significantlyworse than has been represented by the developers, as the trees in the park along the railway arevery see-through when not in full leaf (per the illustration provided in the plans), therefore therewould be very little screening between windows of residents of the new development and existingpark users and near neighbours (including the primary school and residences along St LukesCrescent).

I strongly object to the proposed development of a 20-storey student accommodationblock next to the green space viewpoint in Victoria Park.

This proposal is entirely out of scale with the surrounding area and would cause significant andirreversible harm to one of the city's most valued public green spaces. The height and massing ofthe building would dominate the skyline, overshadowing the park and destroying the open, naturalviews that residents and visitors have enjoyed for generations.

Victoria Park is a vital community asset - a place of recreation, tranquillity, and biodiversity.Building such a large structure right next to it not only undermines its visual integrity but threatensthe environmental quality and peace the park provides. Once this view is lost to a wall of concreteand glass, it cannot be recovered.

While I understand the need for student housing, this location is deeply inappropriate for such amassive development. More sensitive, human-scale solutions in better-suited urban areas shouldbe explored that do not compromise our shared green spaces.

I urge the planning committee to reject this proposal and protect the character and communityvalue of Victoria Park for current and future generations.

The tower block is absurdly high for that location. Why do the council and thedevelopers hate beauty so much? Why do they seek to destroy one of Bristol's most breathtakingviews? Money I suppose... The place for tower blocks (preferably tall and extremely striking) is thearea between Temple Meads and St Phillips Marsh. Anywhere else is an exercise in externalisingthe costs and internalising the profits.

Whilst Policy BCS22 is quoted at paragraph 3.1.14 of the TVIA, we cannot find any mention of the designation of Victoria Park as Local Historic Park and Garden in either the TVIA or the Heritage Statement, or an assessment of whether the development would be in support or conflict with Policy BCS22. Avon Gardens Trust is concerned that the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on the setting of Victoria Park, views out from the Park, and on the enjoyment of users of the Park, as the present open prospect to the north and views across Bristol would become dominated by tall development. We hope that the applicant might consider revisions to the scheme to reduce these impacts, including the reduction in height of the proposed blocks. However, we feel that we must object to the application in its present form due to the significant adverse impact that the development would have on the Local Historic Park and Garden of Victoria Park.

Yours faithfully,

Kay Ross MA Chairman, Avon Gardens Trust

Registered Office: Avon Gardens Trust, The CREATE Environment Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN Registered Charity Number: 900377

I strongly object to the proposed development.Reasons include:-Out of scale with the surrounding area- Would cause major and permanent harm to Victoria Park - this is one of the city's most valuedpublic green spaces- The height is far too high and it would dominate the skyline- The height would feel oppressive and remove the open, naturalviews that are so important for many people- Victoria Park is a vital community asset - important for mental and physical health as well asleisure and nature. Surely these are things the council is trying to improve and follow itscommitments on?- A large structure would undermines its visual integrity and threaten the environmental quality andpeace in the park- Irreversible - once the building is there (inc the visual impact), it cannot be restored- Inappropriate location for student house - other places within the city better-suited - eg smallersolutions in other urban areas that do not compromise green spaces- importance of protecting the character and community value of the area

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment

This proposal is to tall and dense. Entirely out of scale with the surrounding area. Have seen this

time and time again in South Bristol recently-massively tall and dense buildings dropped in and

ruining the area.

Can we just be sensible and build much needed housing that is more sensitive to surrounding

area. Reflective of its community, that can support and help that community grow. Instead of some

cookie cutter version of a building that seems to be airlifted in from a london suburb to loom over a

much loved community centred around the park. Come on, there are better examples of how to do

this in Bristol.

Therefore, please reject this proposal and set a tone that encourages the developer to better

consider the surrounding area and how the wider area development can support the existing

community. Instead of some brick maze that screws over everyone.

Height: This is my biggest concerns and we note that it was a common concern ofotherswho visited the 'consultation' event. It needs to be addressed. The 19-storey tower is totallyunacceptable. It is massively over-sized for this area and will create an overbearing tower blockthat dominates the surroundings and adversely impact the skyline.The regeneration framework explicitly cites the SPD and in many places restates that the SPD isrelevant. The framework and the SPD mention the prevailing height of this area as 3-4 storeys. Soamplified height of 1.5x is 4-6 storeys. The framework mentions the possibility (not eventuality) ofa contextual taller building at a particular site and suggests 10 storeys. Nowhere does theframework document mention a 21-19 storey tower. The framework also notes that citizens wereconcerned by excessive building height (page 32).We feel this proposal is just an outright insult and a mockery of the framework.Views: The 19-storey tower will loom over the area. Although much was made in the 'consultation'about key views across the city from the viewing point in Victoria Park, there are numerous viewsthat would be adversely punctuated by an 'anywhere architecture' oblong tower. It is worthremembering that Bedminster is a conservation area that has special character and appearance.The stated aim of Bristol City Council is to preserve or enhance them.Car Free: We recognise the ambition to be totally car free but have some concerns on thepracticality. Many of the residents will own vehicles - so where will they go? Do you expect thelocal streets to just absorb the extra vehicles?This area is not well served by public transport.Temple Meads station is over 1km away.

The bus stop by Temple meads is about 800m.The bus stop at Bedminster Parade is about 600m away.Given this, we would have liked to see much more on the mitigations in place to make thisworkable. E.g. Areas dedicated to car clubs, special areas set aside for supermarket deliveryvehicles, better storage and access for bicycles, clearer designs for cycle lanes, dedicated electricscooter parking locations, all to make life easier without a car - rather than just removing parkingaltogether and simply hoping it works. Perhaps the area could have a residents parking scheme toensure local streets are not overrun with cars. We would ask the developer to actively push for thisrather than leave it for the council to resolve separately.Student block: There are already several large developments in progress with dedicated studentaccommodation. Over concentration of studentaccommodation does not lend itself to healthy, dynamic communities (due to the transitory natureof the students). We would prefer to see more homes rather than squeezing in smaller units.Affordable block: We welcome the affordable units yet would have preferred to see a range ofsocial provision as well - rather than just "affordable" (which is still not affordable as most peopleunderstand the term).The current design has all affordable units in a separate block. Best practice is to avoid thisapproach as it often leads to segregation or these blocks being treated as poor ghettos. Why nothave the affordable units mixed throughout the site?Encouraging amenities in commercial units: Having attended many consultations we know that acommon concern is lack of amenities like nurseries, doctors, dentists, etc. All these new residentswill put a strain on already stretched amenities so we would like to see some of these included aspart of this development. Developers often state that their commercial units could be used forhealthcare or community spaces - we would like to see the developer put in place long termcontrols or covenants that consistently favour these highly valued amenities. E.g. a covenant thatstipulates a commercial unit must be for community healthcare.Density: The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimumdensities. This part of the city is clearly defined as an optimum density of 120 dwellings perhectare. This development appears to be about 850 dwellings (450+400 student units) across 1.6ha. This is about 530 dph which is over 450% of the optimum density suggested.The SPD helpfully points out "Recent research (Superdensity- HTA et al 2015) has shown thatvery high density can challenge positive response to context, successful placemaking andliveability aspirations, sometimes resulting in poor quality development."As a neighbour we welcome gentle density to support the need for homes. This proposal is simplyexcessive and will not create a nice place to live. If this proposal were all 6-8 storeys high, such asthe successful Wapping Wharf development, this would be a very significant increase in densityfor the area (and likely still above the optimum!). We could probably support this scale ofdevelopment, but not the hyper densities this proposal offers.In summary, we appreciated the time and energy spent by your team and feel there are manyvaluable aspects of this development. However, we have several significant concerns mostlyaround wildly excessive height and density. We would welcome an alternative proposal with amaximum height of 6-7 storeys and feel this would be much more acceptable for the local

community.We look forward to engaging further to create a sustainable, healthy community that will be awelcome place to live for decades into the future.

I object to such a huge building right next to Victoria park there are not many greenspaces in the city and it will cause light pollution and it will spoil the view from the park. Lots ofpeople use the park to enjoy the green natural space which helps everyone's wellbeing and it willbe an eyesore at such a height. Also do we not have enough student accommodation in Bristol?There will not be enough places to park around there.

1) The developer's assessment of the character and appearance of the area is grossmisrepresentation of the context of the development site and wider urban landscape. Theproposed development will encroach into the panoramic view from Victoria Park. The developer'sheritage statement infers that the proposal would 'would provide a similar appreciation of theheritage interest of the remaining heritage assets'. This is simply not true. While a narrow viewcorridor to the spire of the Grade I listed Church of St Mary Redcliffe would just about bemaintained, the proposal would dominate the view and visually compete with the Grade I listedbuilding, the setting of which would not be preserved. Overall, the townscape quality and richnessof this panorama will be significantly weakened by the proposed development.

2) The proposal lacks architectural refinement and would fail to deliver the high-quality, well-designed environment that BCC and national planning policy calls for. The scale and massing ofthe development offers a depressingly blocky and unrefined design response to the site and localcontext. Even lower blocks would introduce a wall of unrelenting and uninspiring development.This would diminish appreciation of the green backdrop setting to the Bedminster ConservationArea that is of value to its significance.

3) The proposed is student-use dominant for student and fails to provide the right mix and diversityof housing type required in the area. The proposal misses an opportunity to provide the right sizeand type of accommodation that would provide much needed homes in Bristol, will exacerbate analready imbalance community that is causing increased demand on local services, including GPprovision and pressure on Victoria Park.

4) Fundamentally, the proposal would be a blatant transgression of the regeneration strategy,baseline evidence including the Bedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisal, andcommunity engagement that has underpinned the future redevelopment of Whitehouse St and itsenvirons. The proposal would contribute to an already incremental degradation of the urbanlandscape in south Bristol with poorly designed tall buildings , as well as over-intensification ofstudent uses with total disinterest in the environmental value of the local area or its community. Iurge Bristol City Council to resist this development and demand much more for Bedminster and itsfuture regeneration.

This is far too big and will cause over crowding and congestion in an area alreadystretched on public services. There will be a negative impact on the green spaces around the areaespecially the park which already cannot cope with the waste left by visitors. There is no scope foraffordable community housing. The skyline across the park will be ruined by a development that isout of place with the rest of the community buildings.

I live right alongside Victoria Park, which is a protected dark sky area and one majorconcern here is the additional Light pollution this level of building would cause. As a resident hereover the last twenty years I am additionally concerned about congestion in what alreadyincreasingly feels like an overcrowded residential area, impacting the surrounding roads more andmore each year (without additional tower blocks). I cannot see how this proposed development forstudent housing, as a no car development, can meet the needs of the area. We should be farmore concerned with meeting the needs of our community foremost and prioritising affordablefamily homes. This is an area populated with primary schools, local shops and families. From whatI have understand these locals and residents are not being listened to following extensiveconsultation feedback. Our voices are being called for, but then routinely ignored. I don't believethat means the developers are legally meeting their obligations to an existing community. Thisneeds to stop.

I write to formally object to the proposed planning application submitted by the GalliardApsley Partnership concerning the redevelopment of the Princess Street and Whitehouse Streetsites. This objection is grounded in a detailed review of the Design and Access Statement andsupporting materials, and is aligned with key planning policies, including the Urban LivingSupplementary Planning Document (SPD), the Bristol Local Plan, the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF), and the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF).

Overdevelopment - The scale of the proposal represents a significant overdevelopment (500+dwellings per hectare), considering the SPD recommendations for this particular location (InnerUrban Area ideal 120 units/ha). The proposed density exceeds the capacity of surroundinginfrastructure and neither reflects the prevailing context, nor enhances it. This contradicts UrbanLiving SPD UL2 and WSRF 5.4, which encourages context-sensitive intensification, notunchecked growth. It also does not take into account that the rest of the Whitehouse St TradingEstate is also up for development and that the total amount of proposed homes for the entire areais pitched at 2000 dwellings (based upon SPD parameters). This development alone would bealmost half of this, with several (large) plots still to have plans delivered. With the developmentsstill to come in Bedminster Green, Mead St and at Temple Meads the population of the area willincrease exponentially and local amenities are already under resourced with the existingpopulation (healthcare, early years, primary and secondary education provision, park facilities).The WSRF, as adopted by BCC, was intended, and as dictated by the SPD, to shape asustainable and cohesive plan for the entire area, which is being fundamentally undermined bythis proposal.

Excessive Building Height and Massing - is contrary to Policy BCS21 (Quality Urban Design) inthe Bristol Core Strategy, where contextually high buildings need to contribute positively to theidentity of the surrounding area. The height and scale of the proposal, with 19 storeys being overfour times the prevailing height of the nearest, tallest residential properties on York Road and StLukes Road, presents a looming and ominous monolith which will be visible from many pointsacross the city, breaking the skyline in an obtrusive and unattractive way. The WSRF (5.4), whileacknowledging that there was capacity for a "contextually high building", also stated that 10storeys (30m) was the optimum height in this position. The proposal from the developer appears tobe relying upon a single Sycamore tree to diminish the impact of Block D upon the views north ofthe park - which does not account for the tree not being in leaf for nearly 5 months of the year, northat this tree may not have much longer remaining of its life cycle.

Tall buildings must demonstrate contextual sensitivity and design excellence, which is notachieved here. The impact on townscape and skyline has not been adequately justified and theTVIAs used have limited the true impact of this height and mass upon the surrounding contextthrough the use of wide angle photos and irrelevant viewpoints.

Directly referencing the SPD Q3 Visual Quality (fig.12) as policy confirmation AGAINST acontextual building in this location:

Locational criteria Tall buildings are more likely to be supported in locations:- where they are likely to have a positive impact on the socio-economic health of the widerneighbourhood (THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS LOCATION)-within reasonable walking distance of a range of local facilities and public transport (PUBLICTRANSPORT IS AT THE OUTER LIMITS OF ACCESIBILITY ACCORDING TO THE SPD)- where they can help support patronage to proposed new public transport infrastructure (THEREIS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS IN THE PROPOSAL)- close to other tall residential or commercial clusters of tall buildings where it can bedemonstrated that a new tall building serves to raise the quality and coherence of the cluster,without creating adverse impacts on the micro climate (NOT RELEVANT TO OTHER TALLBUILDINGS OR CLUSTERS APART FROM SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR OTHERLOCATIONS)- at locations where the provision of a landmark building would clearly improve the legibility of thecity. (NOT THE CASE IN THIS LOCATION)A tall building should not be located where:- it hides or masks the topography of the city (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it harms valued views from key vantage-points (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it has a detrimental impact on the city's historic environment (IT DOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it has a significant negative impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers or on the public realm (ITDOES IN THIS LOCATION)- it has a negative impact on existing nearby renewable energy systems (TBD)- there is insufficient transport, utilities or community infrastructure to support a more intensive

form of development. (TOO INTENSIVE FOR THIS LOCATION)

PBSA Overdominance - The 19-storey student accommodation (Block D) undermines theintended mixed-tenure vision and risks short-term transient occupancy dominating the localcharacter. This contravenes WSRF Theme: A Sustainable Community and Urban Living SPD UL2.The eagerness to flood South Bristol with PBSAs is not reflected in the infrastructure nor suitabilityof the Whitehouse St location. There is also evidence that PBSAs are not representing sufficientvalue for money for students and their families, and so are not achieving full occupation. The Buildto Rent blocks of this proposal could prove far more economically appealing to students, creatingan even denser student community than indicated, that will not be contributing to local character,community or city taxes. The proposed PBSA amount in the area has already exceeded localquotas and there is evidence that PBSA demand may be decreasing with fewer internationalstudents looking to the UK for places, as it becomes increasingly financially challenging andunwelcoming. The over commitment and reliance upon PBSAs is a short-term and, debatably,unrobust approach to tackling the wider housing issues in Bristol with the premise that HMOs willbe freed up due to more students taking advantage of PBSAs. These builds do not offer anyflexibility for alternative use and would not be suitable for conversion to regular residentialdwellings if the market were to implode (or another pandemic remove need completely) and soseems like a very poor use of valuable land and resource.

Lack of future proofing for local services and amenity strain - The proposal includes no confirmedcontributions for school or healthcare provision, despite the expected population increase. Thisfails to satisfy Policy BCS12 (Community Facilities) found in the Bristol Core Strategy. The builditself will have considerable impact upon the local educational institutions (Oasis Academy, LPW,St Mary Redcliffe Primary) jeopardising their ability to deliver their provision. The lack ofacknowledgment of the educational facilities that this development will overshadow, appears to bea concerted effort to minimise their importance in the context of this development.

Obstruction of Key Views - The massing of the development will interrupt existing views fromVictoria Park and obstruct citywide sightlines. WSRF 5.4 and the Urban Living SPD Part 3 requirekey views to be protected, especially in tall building proposals. The impact on views to the north,while stating that site lines to key landmarks are preserved, does not take into account the overallimpact of taking out the foreground view from the elevated positions in Victoria Park, a view thatwas deemed beneficial from the time the land was gifted to the people of south Bristol, in the late1800's, for their health and wellbeing. This massing will equally impede visibility of the park to thesouth, eliminating a valuable green vista that is becoming increasingly rare in the city.

Visual Harm to Local Character - The development's massing is discordant with the traditionalscale and form of neighbouring streets, particularly the Grade II listed Georgian houses of YorkRoad (that this development would become the back drop for) and the Victorian terraced housingof Southville and Bedminster. The dominance of Blocks C and D undermines the local residentialcharacter, in breach of Urban Living SPD DC3 and WSRF 5.3. It is felt that the Design and Access

Statement underplays the impact on York Road and the New Cut of this development and uponthe wider context of the Conservation Area.

Impact upon the Heritage Asset of Victoria Park - the proposal's juxtaposition with the green spaceof Victoria Park, fails to mitigate the impact that this massing will have upon the experience of thepark for all users, not only from the northern aspect but from all compass points. The developmentwill tower over this precious amenity and degrade the experience of using that space, particularlyin the open areas to the eastern border of the park. Victoria Park is also a designated Urban DarkSky area and this proposal makes no reference to ensuring that light pollution is minimised(particularly from the masses of Blocks C and D), both for the protection of wildlife and on thesurrounding residences.

Environmental Impact - while the assessment determines that there is no negative impact uponthe local environment, it fails to acknowledge the adjacency to Victoria Park and establishedpopulations of birds, mammals and established woodland (including the Sycamore that will be theprimary, if inadequate, screen for Block D) . The railway and northern edge of the park is a provenroute for local and rare bat populations (reference BS3 Bat Audit 2024), as well as many nestingbirds. Disruption from the build, light pollution and subsequent human impact could severelydamage, irreparably, these precious aspects of diminishing urban wildlife.

Insufficient Integration with Victoria Park - Although adjacent to Victoria Park, the scheme does notcreate direct green corridors or sightlines. WSRF 5.6 calls for meaningful integration with existinggreen infrastructure, which is absent here.

Daylight and Sunlight Deficiencies - The application references BRE standards yet seeks flexibilitydue to its urban location. However, many proposed rooms and amenity areas fall belowacceptable daylight targets, compromising liveability and contravening SPD DC1 (see AppendixB). It also has not made reference to impact upon future adjoining sites to the north, east andwest: it's proximity to other sites, yet to be developed to the north will, in this planning iteration,seriously impact the daylight and sunlight of these future sites, and, hence, their viability.It is also believed that insufficient Autumn/Winter/Spring shadowing studies have been made forthe properties to the north on York Road, some gardens of which are less than 100m from thetallest block (D).

Noise Impact Assessment - this document appears to present very limited timeframes ofassessment upon future residents, which doesn't fully account for the considerable noise from therailway (which operates 24hrs) or an increase in services (which you might assume wouldtranspire with the increase in local residents and need). The area of track directly under thedevelopment is both a staging post for trains entering Temple Meads and a route for freight trainsin the night. According to the N.I.A. there will be many dwellings facing south in the developmentthat would experience noise levels above the acceptable parameters for residential properties.These properties, being south facing and receiving the full impact of the midday sun, will then also

be unable to open windows for fresh air exchange/cooling purposes. This seems at odds with theSPD's parameters for sustainability and could be a particular issue with climate change impactand increasingly hot seasons, putting reliance upon effectiveness of internal cooling systems. Youwould expect there to be some accounting for this in the orientation of the building andaccommodations made for shading of these dwellings.

There is also concern that the noise impact of reverberation from the completed development frompassing trains has not been assessed and will negatively affect the wildlife in the park, enjoymentof the tranquillity of the park, as well as St Mary Redcliffe Primary School. Residents aroundBedminster Green have reported that this is now an issue with the developments as noisebounces off the large fascias back onto the properties that are overlooked. Increase in this type ofurban noise was not anticipated as being one of the ongoing issues post build.

Underwhelming Public Realm Provision - While public spaces are proposed, they are eitherinternalised or overshadowed, lacking quality or usability. The Urban Living SPD (Checklist 2.3)and WSRF 5.6 call for accessible, sunlit and safe open spaces-standards this proposal does notmeet. The proposed play area will risk not being allocated in time for residents (due to the powersource requirements) and this poses concerns for the delivery of this as it may then be subject toperceived need at a later point - a chicken and egg scenario where families will not be attracted tothe development due to lack of appropriate outside space for children.

Unrealistic Transport Provisions - The proposal lacks a detailed transport impact assessment andmodal shift strategy, raising serious questions about congestion and air quality. This fails WSRF5.2 and SPD Q2.1-2.4 on sustainable transport planning. The distances to, and available servicesfrom, local transport points (Bedminster Station, Redcliffe Hill Bus Stops, Temple Meads) are atthe limits of SPD recommendation as well as being infrequent or indirect services to student hubsacross the city. The car free development aspect does not respect the fact that, in spite of cyclestorage provision that, in a city which has considerable annual rain fall, that there will be manymonths of the year when cycling is neither appealing, practical, nor safe for many people,especially young families. There is also no reference to electric charging points, car pool locations,city bikes or public scooter areas etc which would help to make a low car development morereasonable.

Parking Overspill Risk - The limited parking proposed, with no on-street control measures, willdisplace cars into neighbouring streets. WSRF 5.2 and BCS10 of the Local Plan emphasise theneed to avoid localised transport impacts. With 830+ dwellings (with the potential for more thandouble that in adult headcount alone) there needs to be a more realistic approach to the fact thatcar ownership is still a practicality for many people living in Bristol, especially for families. Otherdevelopments have successfully incorporated underground parking (General Hospital, BedminsterBridge flats) but the recent 'car free' developments have only succeeded in putting pressure onexisting parking in neighbouring areas which are unprotected by RPZs. The effect of these car freedevelopments is to make it increasingly difficult for families - and those who rely upon cars for

work purposes - to live in the city. The "15 Minute City" is not a reality for most living in SouthBristol, especially as industry and blue collar jobs are increasingly pushed away from the centreand environs. The working classes can no longer, practically inhabit the city when places of workare being pushed further away, with travelling times via public transport, adding undue andimmediate cost.

Cycling and Waste Storage Shortcomings - Refuse and cycle storage solutions are inconsistentlypresented and in some areas poorly located or inaccessible. This conflicts with SPD Q2.6 andWSRF 5.2 which to prioritise active transport and efficient urban services. It is unclear whether thewaste facilities in Block D (in the basement) are either sufficient, or practical for that density, andthere are no apparent shared laundry facilities, adding to negative environmental load of thedevelopment as a whole and impracticality when it comes to washing and drying clothing. Thestudio layouts are unclear as to whether they provide washing facilities for each individual unit orcluster - surely an environmental and ecological consideration of some importance

Low Affordable Housing Offer - The proposed 20% affordable provision falls short of the city-widepolicy target (30-40%) and is not sufficiently justified. WSRF allows reduced provision in earlyphases only when supported by a clear viability case, which is absent here. For a high densitydevelopment to still be unable to deliver the city's target, displays a level of greed orunsustainability that surely needs to be questioned. The lack of integration of the AffordableHousing contribution with the rest of the site, and the fact that there is no designated providermentioned in the application, also indicates that this is not a proposal which yet has solidfoundations.

Lack of Family Housing - The unit mix is skewed towards smaller apartments and studios, failingto address Bristol's need for family homes in central areas. This undermines SPD DC1, BCS18and WSRF objectives to create a family-friendly, inclusive neighbourhood. Without properprovision for families this will not be a mixed development. There is also no minimalaccommodation of private open space (recommended at 5sqm in the SPD Appendix A))

Monotonous Architectural Expression - Repetitive massing and bland materiality weaken thearchitectural identity of the site. SPD DC3 and WSRF 5.3 seek distinctive, locally informed designresponses-criteria the proposal fails to meet. The majority of the dwellings are single aspectresidences (which goes against SPD Q2.8) with minimal balcony provision. The bland facades donot complement the area when at such a scale and, quite frankly, will be an eyesore for manydecades to come.

Wind Microclimate Risks - The wind assessment provided will not take into consideration theaddition of more developments to the north and west of this site. With the prevailing wind comingfrom the south there is a very real risk that this development will create, noisy and unpleasant windtunnels, like those experienced behind Temple Meads. SPD Part 3 and WSRF 5.4 requiredemonstration that such issues are addressed, particularly in public spaces, and, on review of the

available evidence do not have confidence that this has been investigated in sufficient detail

Overshadowing of Neighbours to the North of the Development - The applicant provides noverified analysis of impacts on existing residential properties on York Road or on St Luke's Road.This is contrary to BRE best practice and WSRF 5.4 principles. These properties were also not onthe notification list, in spite of being the largest and most immediate concentration of potentiallyaffected residences adjacent to this proposed development.

Neglect of Local Heritage Setting - The setting of nearby historic streets and views is insufficientlyassessed. SPD Part 3 and WSRF 5.3 require heritage context to inform proposals. While theTVIAs have chosen certain, potentially more favourable, visuals, there are others which have notbeen offered (eg. impact on the Totterdown escarpment/Pylle Hill, impact on the southern sectionof Victoria Park, impact upon St Mary Redcliffe Primary School, impact upon the southern aspectof York Road properties and those to the east overlooking St Lukes's Road)

Vague Commercial Use Strategy - Commercial elements are not clearly defined by use class, sizeor fit-out, risking vacancies and unsuitability for relevant commercial use. This contradicts WSRF5.5, which promotes integrated, vibrant employment space. Without parking, the units risk notattracting visitors from a wider area, nor will be appealing to businesses that require some form ofvehicular access and parking to allow them to function. Currently there are businesses across thetrading estate and to the west of Whiethouse St itself, whose workers and customers, use the areato park (also visitors to the various schools, gym, car servicing etc). While the overall vision mayerase all of these elements from the longer term plans, in the short to medium term, unlessaccommodation is made for existing access requirements, the development will only becontributing negatively to the existing community.

Inadequate Response to Public Consultation - Engagement findings are listed but notdemonstrably integrated into the scheme. WSRF mandates community involvement thatmeaningfully informs design. This application disregards all of the extensive feedback that wasgathered (and publicly financed) under the direction of BCC. If this development is approved it willmake an absolute mockery of the consultation process and fundamentally undermine local trust insubsequent attempts to appease opposition to these developments being strong armed into thecommunity.

ConclusionThis application, in its current form, represents an unsustainable, inappropriate and inadequatelyjustified intervention in a sensitive urban setting. I therefore urge Bristol City Council to refuseplanning permission and request a revised proposal that better aligns with the Urban Living SPD,Bristol Local Plan, and the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework. The people of southBristol are sick and tired of being asked to accommodate insensitive plans created by companiesthat have no interest in the city apart from for personal financial gain and potentially dubiousinvestment purposes.

I object to the proposed development of a 20-storey student accommodation block nextto the viewpoint in Victoria Park.

This proposal is entirely out of scale with the surrounding area and would cause significant andirreversible harm to one of the city's most valued public green spaces. The height of the buildingwould dominate the skyline, overshadowing the park and destroying the open, natural views.

Building such a large structure right next to the park not only undermines its visual integrity butthreatens the environmental quality and peace the park provides.

This location is inappropriate for such amassive development and alternative solutions that do not compromise our shared green spacesshould be explored. The current plans serve to line the pockets of developers and are not in theinterest of the local community.

I am a Bedminster local, very close to this new proposed development. It is a terribleidea, driven solely by greed, to the detriment of normal people who work all week and pay taxes tothe city.

There is over development in this area without consideration for the local amenities. Thesewer has already collapsed on Whitehouse Street and could this be to do with the suddenaddition of thousands more people? The height and density of this proposed development is toobig for this area and doesn't take into account the unique character of the surrounding areas letalone the existing infrastructure. The area is creaking under all the new building.No one is against new development but it MUST be within reason. Wapping Wharf is a goodexample of low rise, well designed development that doesn't dwarf nearby buildings and dominatethe skyline.

Object most STRONGLY- Developer has ignored community feedback and consultations- 19-storey tower out of proportion to local buildings harming the townscape views, dominate thesurroundings- Will undermine the Whitehouse Street Regeneration: suggested towers will loom over the areaand adversely impact the skyline.- The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimumdensities. Over 450% of the optimum density suggested.- Low design regarding the proximity to the Bedminster conservation area.- Excessive concentration of PBSA already too many in Bristol- Affordable housing placement will bring unnecessary segregation.

If this tower block gets built I will climb to the top and jump off. This is not okay.

I strongly object to this application. The 19 storey tower is entirely out of proportion toother buildings in the area. It will dominate the surroundings. It also contradicts the WhitehouseStreet Regeneration Framework which has the prevailing height in the area as 3-4 storeys andeven amplified at 4-6 storeys. It will loom over the area and adversely impact the skyline. Bothfrom Victoria Park and elsewhere.

It is overdeveloped. The Whitehouse Regeneration Framework states an optimum density of 120dwellings per hectare in this area. With 850 units this development comes out at 530 per hectare.

It will be an overbearing presence completely out of character with the surroundingneighbourhood. Buildings over 8 storeys are meant to demonstrate high quality design. Thisdoesn't. Both the Bedminster conservation area and the listed terrace in York Road will beimpacted.

A car free development of this scale would require car club spaces, cycle storage facilities beyondminimum, zones for e-scooters, support for a residents' parking scheme in surrounding areas.None is provided.

The student accommodation means transient populations and no contribution to council tax. Thereis a high demand for market and affordable homes in this area. Why are what affordable unitsthere are in a separate block ? It risks segregation.

Myself, family, friends, school community and fellow professionals (architects andmaster planners) object on the following grounds:

The Use Class E, and specifically student residences, is not suitable in this area, neither for theexisting uses or the future users of the site, i.e. student / resident's amenity, safety, convenienceand connection to the community.

The scale and massing is inappropriate in this low rise area and little consideration has been givento the local primary school, city farm, historical context, high streets and park.

There are issues of overlooking to the Primary School (St. Mary Redcliffe).

If the current proposal goes ahead, there will be long term issues of added pollution to the school,farm and surrounding homes with noise and dust from site works in such close proximity, withprevailing winds compounding the problem. The building will bring little benefit to the school. Therewill also be significant site traffic in this area which already has congestion problems and highemissions and is a key route for many children at the start and end of the day.

If the scheme was permitted to go ahead there would need to be restrictions and key planningconditions pertaining to:

- height

- section 106- minimisation of site works i.e. using offsite fabrication as much as possible to limit pollution, dustand fumes to the adjacent school, farm and residences

I object to the excessive height of the 19 storey tower block which will eradicate anyview from Victoria Park's 'View Finder. I object to the density of the buildings and the number offlats which is way above the number that was agreed with the council as part of the WhitehouseFramework. The canyons between the flats look grim in the designs. The part time occupancy ofstudent accommodation (20 weeks vacant a year) is not conducive for a vibrant neighbourhood.Why are there not more homes for families as promised by the council? Shameful prioritisation ofmaking a profit for shareholders, which we can see from the number of the flats and the size ofthem. A hugely disappointing design for what seemed like a golden opportunity.

I object to this planning application for a number of reasons1. Parking - despite comments that it's a central location, people have cars. The area is alreadycongested. A development this size is certain to increase traffic put an increased strain on localparking and increase pollution.2. Victoria Park - I have lived in the area for 19 years and in recent years the use of the park hasincreased significantly. I welcome students to the area but the increase in people using the parkhas led to frequently overflowing bins and general littering. The park has only one toilet. Myconcern is more students using the park will have a significant negative impact on this importantgreen space which is so central to why this area is a desirable place to live.3. St Mary Redcliffe Primary School - they is huge concern from staff and families at the schooldue to the height of the development and the effect this will have on light and privacy of the school4. Local facilities - medical services, schools, unable to sustain this huge increase in population inthe area

As a local resident, my key concerns, which constitute material planning considerations,are as follows:

1. Excessive height and scale out of character with the area:The proposed building heights, particularly Block D at 18 storeys (reduced from an initial 19), andparts of Block C reaching 14 storeys, are demonstrably out of scale with the intended character forthis part of Bedminster. While the applicant references the Whitehouse Street RegenerationFramework (WSRF), the WSRF defines "contextual tall buildings" in the eastern part of the site as"30m or higher (the equivalent of around 10 storeys)". The proposed development significantlyexceeds this, creating an overbearing impact.

This excessive height is contrary to Policy BCS21 (Quality Urban Design) of the Bristol CoreStrategy, which requires development to contribute positively to an area's character and identity. Italso conflicts with Policy DM26 (Local Character and Distinctiveness) and Policy DM27 (Layoutand Form) of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan, both of whichrequire new development to reflect distinctive characteristics and relate well to the street's heightand scale. The community consultation feedback confirms that building heights were a primaryconcern, with some describing the effect as creating a 'canyon'.

2. High density and strain on local resources, particularly healthcare:The proposed development's high density, at around 530 dwellings per hectare, places significantpressure on existing local infrastructure and services. This density necessitates careful

consideration of its impact on local resources, particularly in relation to the sustainable provision ofcommunity facilities as required by Policy BCS12 (Community Facilities) of the Bristol CoreStrategy.

The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Statement of Community Involvement identify the needfor additional healthcare and childcare services as key concerns. While the applicant proposesincluding these within the commercial space, the potential health impact of this proposed use ismarked as "Uncertain" in the HIA. I request clarification and firm, guaranteed commitmentsregarding the specific provision of healthcare and childcare facilities within the development.

Furthermore, it's crucial that any new student residents will place additional and potentiallyunmanageable demands on already oversubscribed local GP practices, directly impacting theprovision of healthcare for existing non-student residents. This is because students often haveparticular health needs, which in Bristol are met by a specialist University of Bristol Student HealthService, but this proposed development falls outside the area covered by that dedicated service.

3. Unrealistic parking and transport strategy:The proposal's "car-free" strategy, while aligned with wider council policy, raises concerns aboutits practicality and potential for displacing parking onto surrounding residential streets. Thecommunity consultation expressed concerns that a car-free development was "unrealistic". Whilethe Transport Assessment addresses servicing and cycle storage, it lacks sufficient detail onprovisions for car clubs, deliveries, and e-scooter/parcel services. This lack of robust provisionrisks undermining the aims of Policy BCS10 (Transport and Accessibility) of the Bristol CoreStrategy and Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies Plan, which seek to promote sustainable transport andmanage parking impact effectively. This requires secured and practical provisions beyondminimum standards and guaranteed financial support for a residents' parking scheme in thesurrounding area.

4. Reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling:The site's exposure to noise necessitates reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling in certainareas, increasing the overall energy demand of the buildings. The HIA notes that overheatinganalysis, particularly for a "2080 scenario" factoring in climate change, indicates passive measuresmight not be sufficient in Block D. This dependency on active, energy-intensive systems tomaintain habitable conditions, especially as climate change increases overheating risk, appearscontrary to the aims of Policy BCS13 (Climate Change) and BCS14 (Sustainable Energy) of theBristol Core Strategy, which promote reducing carbon emissions, energy efficiency, and adaptingto a changing climate through sustainable design.

5. Impact of student accommodation:Concerns were raised during consultation about the inclusion of a significant proportion of studentaccommodation. The community expressed a clear desire for a mix of affordable and market

homes, not further student accommodation, as a high concentration of student housing impactsthe creation of dynamic, balanced communities, contrary to Policy BCS18 (Mixed and BalancedCommunities) of the Bristol Core Strategy.

Conclusion:While acknowledging the need for regeneration, the proposed development, particularly its scaleand density, raises serious concerns regarding its compatibility with local planning guidance, thecapacity of local infrastructure and services, and its potential impact on existing residents andbusinesses. The issues highlighted above, drawn from the application documents and communityfeedback, indicate fundamental conflicts and potential negative consequences that have not beenadequately addressed or mitigated in the current proposal.

I urge Bristol City Council to refuse this planning application or require significant modifications,secured by robust planning conditions or obligations, to bring it into genuine alignment with theadopted planning framework and address the significant concerns of the local community beforeconsidering approval.

This proposal is noncompliant with the Whitehouse Street Redevelopment Frameworkboth in the framework's stated principles and specific objectives.

A Mixed tenure neighbourhood:- The current proposal would be dominated by single occupants with 1 bed apartments making up48% of the development (excluding student-only).

Family Friendly:- In addition to the above distribution the prioritisation of BtR and PBSA within the development islikely to mean that families are priced out of the area.

Strong Identity and Reinforcing local character:- The proposal makes no use of any core local characteristics such as rendered walls, colour orstonework. Instead the buildings are highly generic; designed to New London Vernacular with fullbrick facades that are out of place with the rest of Bedminster. Even excluding the lack of cuesdrawn from Totterdown and Windmill Hill there is no strong identity within the developmentproposal.

Amenities, green space and public services:- The lack of any large or flexible commercial spaces would create significant challenges for theprovision of a new GP, local supermarket or other community asset, regardless of the developersstatements. This also means that space for growth sectors will be limited.

- Block A provides less street space than the existing buildings facing Whitehouse lane.This is atodds with the desire to create a lively neighbourhood and open square at the junction.- The orientation of the buildings also means that the majority of public realm created will be onside streets which do not encourage through flow or a lively streetscape

Placemaking:- The proposal takes a maximalist interpretation of the framework regarding both the protection ofviews from Victoria Park and in terms of the massing. The views, especially at dawn, dusk and atnight will be heavily compromised. This is one of the few remaining publicly accessible views ofthe whole city. The proposal would have it obscured with roof gardens of student accommodation.- While the framework does include the provision for taller buildings at no point are "significantly"higher buildings discussed. Further any tall buildings "would need to be contextual anddemonstrate high quality design". Given that the proposal describes the Wills Memorial Tower ashaving brick tones and makes no effort to reduce the block nature of its top.- I do not believe the developer has any intention of achieving the placemaking goals set out or theprotection of irreplaceable views.

Consultation feedback:- The majority of feedback from consultation sessions appears to have been either ignored or notacted upon.- Reducing the height of the student block by 2 stories does little when it is significantly higher thanimplied by the framework and will likely remain far higher than envisaged in the framework even ifthis application is denied.

Quality of Accommodation:- The accommodation is smaller than that required in the nationally described space standard, withpoor provision for storage and poor natural light for many of the apartments.

More broadly the developer appears to be taking an approach that ignores key aspects of theframework which the local community helped to generate. This destroys trust in the process ofcommunity engagement.

I work in this area which is already being overshadowed by new immense tower blocksand where it is already impossible to park. This block will cause further congestion andovercrowding in a busy, crowded area and will impact upon Victoria Park which is a preciousgreen lung in the district. There is already a huge amount of student accomodation in the area,priority should be given to building housing for local families. These enormous blocks would not beapproved in influential North Bristol but, as always, the voices of people in South Bristol areignored.

Local residents are strongly opposing plans to build a 19-story student accommodationblock in their neighborhood. Many fear that the proposed development will significantly disrupt thecharacter of the area and lower the quality of life for existing residents. The towering structure,they argue, will cast large shadows over nearby homes and gardens, blocking out the sunlight thatis currently enjoyed by many.

Noise is another major concern. With hundreds of students expected to move in, neighbors worrythat the area will be subjected to frequent loud parties and increased foot traffic, especially atnight. This could lead to a rise in antisocial behavior and compromise the safety and tranquility ofthe community.

Residents also fear that the influx of students will exacerbate issues with littering and dirty streets,as high-density living often comes with challenges in maintaining cleanliness and wastemanagement. This is particularly concerning in a neighborhood that prides itself on its friendly,community-focused atmosphere.

In short, neighbors believe that this development prioritizes profit over people. They are calling onlocal authorities to reject the plan and instead consider alternative housing solutions that respectthe existing community and environment.

I would like you to refer to the objection made by TRESA residential group - "Responseto development of Princess Street" dated 14/12/24 Simon Hobeck and his many areas of concern.We would like to highlight these again to ensure that they are included in this objection.Unfortunately, some developers are prone to cherry-picking positive comments and ignoring theserious concern of local people. I live on York Road as a teenager and would truly benefit from amore sustainable, healthy community space for the future.

Height: This is one of our biggest concern and we note that it was a common concern of otherswho visited the 'consultation' event. It needs to be addressed. The 19-storey tower is totallyunacceptable. It is massively over-sized for this area and will create an overbearing tower blockthat dominates the surroundings and adversely impact the skyline.During the consultation event the architect claimed that the Council's Urban Living SPD was notrelevant as the Whitehouse regeneration framework superseded it. This is not correct. Theregeneration framework explicitly cites the SPD and in many places restates that the SPD isrelevant. The framework and the SPD mention the prevailing height of this area as 3-4 storeys. Soamplified height of 1.5x is 4-6 storeys. The framework mentions the possibility (not eventuality) ofa contextual taller building at a particular site and suggests 10 storeys. Nowhere does theframework document mention a 21-storey tower. The framework also notes that citizens wereconcerned by excessive building height (page 32).We feel this proposal is just an outright insult and a mockery of the framework.

Views: The 19-storey tower will loom over the area. Although much was made in the 'consultation'

about key views across the city from the viewing point in Victoria Park, there are numerous viewsthat would be adversely punctuated by an 'anywhere architecture' oblong tower. It is worthremembering that Bedminster is a conservation area that has special character and appearance.The stated aim of Bristol City Council is to preserve or enhance them.

Car Free: We recognise the ambition to be totally car free but have some concerns on thepracticality. Many of the residents will own vehicles - so where will they go? Do you expect thelocal streets to just absorb the extra vehicles?This area is not well served by public transport.Temple Meads station is over 1km away.The bus stop by Temple meads is about 800m.The bus stop at Bedminster Parade is about 600m away.Given this, we would have liked to see much more on the mitigations in place to make thisworkable. E.g. Areas dedicated to car clubs, special areas set aside for supermarket deliveryvehicles, better storage and access for bicycles, clearer designs for cycle lanes, dedicated electricscooter parking locations, all to make life easier without a car - rather than just removing parkingaltogether and simply hoping it works. Perhaps the area could have a residents parking scheme toensure local streets are not overrun with cars. We would ask the developer to actively push for thisrather than leave it for the council to resolve separately. Regarding the ambition to be car free Itfeels as though these real problems are being ignored and left for the council to cover.

Student block: We are unsure about this. There are already several large developments inprogress with dedicated student accommodation. Is there really the demand for this? Overconcentration of student accommodation does not lend itself to healthy, dynamic communities(due to the transitory nature of the students). We would prefer to see more homes rather thansqueezing in smaller units. This feels like an attempt at extracting more money from the site ratherthan creating a balanced community.

Affordable block: We welcome the affordable units yet would have preferred to see a range ofsocial provision as well - rather than just "affordable" (which is still not affordable as most peopleunderstand the term).The current design has all affordable units in a separate block. Best practice is to avoid thisapproach as it often leads to segregation or these blocks being treated as poor ghettos. Why nothave the affordable units mixed throughout the site?

Encouraging amenities in commercial units: Having attended many consultations we know that acommon concern is lack of amenities like nurseries, doctors, dentists, etc. All these new residentswill put a strain on already stretched amenities so we would like to see some of these included aspart of this development. Developers often state that their commercial units could be used forhealthcare or community spaces - we would like to see the developer put in place long termcontrols or covenants that consistently favour these highly valued amenities. E.g. a covenant thatstipulates a commercial unit must be for community healthcare.

Density: The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimumdensities. This part of the city is clearly defined as an optimum density of 120 dwellings perhectare. This development appears to be about 850 dwellings (450+400 student units) across 1.6ha. This is about 530 dph which is over 450% of the optimum density suggested.The SPD helpfully points out "Recent research (Superdensity- HTA et al 2015) has shown thatvery high density can challenge positive response to context, successful placemaking andliveability aspirations, sometimes resulting in poor quality development."As a neighbour we welcome gentle density to support the need for homes. This proposal is simplyexcessive and will not create a nice place to live. If this proposal were all 6-8 storeys high, such asthe successful Wapping Wharf development, this would be a very significant increase in densityfor the area (and likely still above the optimum!). We could probably support this scale ofdevelopment, but not the hyper densities this proposal offers.

In summary, we appreciated the time and energy spent by your team and feel there are manyvaluable aspects of this development. However, we have several significant concerns mostlyaround wildly excessive height and density. We would welcome an alternative proposal with amaximum height of 6-7 storeys and feel this would be much more acceptable for the localcommunity.

We look forward to engaging further to create a sustainable, healthy community that will be awelcome place to live for decades into the future.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I would like you to refer to the objection made by TRESA residential group - "Response

to development of Princess Street" dated 14/12/24 Simon Hobeck and his many areas of concern.

We would like to highlight these again to ensure that they are included in this objection.

Unfortunately, some developers are prone to cherry-picking positive comments and ignoring the

serious concern of local people. I would truly benefit from a more sustainable, healthy community

space for the future.

Height: This is one of our biggest concerns and we note that it was a common concern of others

who visited the 'consultation' event. It needs to be addressed. The 19-storey tower is totally

unacceptable. It is massively over-sized for this area and will create an overbearing tower block

that dominates the surroundings and adversely impact the skyline.

The regeneration framework explicitly cites the SPD and in many places restates that the SPD is

relevant. The framework and the SPD mention the prevailing height of this area as 3-4 storeys. So

amplified height of 1.5x is 4-6 storeys. The framework mentions the possibility (not eventuality) of

a contextual taller building at a particular site and suggests 10 storeys. Nowhere does the

framework document mention a 21-storey tower. The framework also notes that citizens were

concerned by excessive building height (page 32).

We feel this proposal is just an outright insult and a mockery of the framework.

Views: The 19-storey tower will loom over the area. Although much was made in the 'consultation'

about key views across the city from the viewing point in Victoria Park, there are numerous views

that would be adversely punctuated by an 'anywhere architecture' oblong tower. It is worth

remembering that Bedminster is a conservation area that has special character and appearance.

The stated aim of Bristol City Council is to preserve or enhance them.

Car Free: We recognise the ambition to be totally car free but have some concerns on the

practicality. Many of the residents will own vehicles - so where will they go? Do you expect the

local streets to just absorb the extra vehicles?

This area is not well served by public transport.

Temple Meads station is over 1km away.

The bus stop by Temple meads is about 800m.

The bus stop at Bedminster Parade is about 600m away.

Given this, we would have liked to see much more on the mitigations in place to make this

workable. E.g. Areas dedicated to car clubs, special areas set aside for supermarket delivery

vehicles, better storage and access for bicycles, clearer designs for cycle lanes, dedicated electric

scooter parking locations, all to make life easier without a car - rather than just removing parking

altogether and simply hoping it works. Perhaps the area could have a residents parking scheme to

ensure local streets are not overrun with cars. We would ask the developer to actively push for this

rather than leave it for the council to resolve separately. Regarding the ambition to be car free It

feels as though these real problems are being ignored and left for the council to cover.

Student block: There are already several large developments in progress with dedicated student

accommodation. Is there really the demand for this? Over concentration of student

accommodation does not lend itself to healthy, dynamic communities (due to the transitory nature

of the students). We would prefer to see more homes rather than squeezing in smaller units. This

feels like an attempt at extracting more money from the site rather than creating a balanced

community.

Affordable block: We welcome the affordable units yet would have preferred to see a range of

social provision as well - rather than just "affordable" (which is still not affordable as most people

understand the term).

The current design has all affordable units in a separate block. Best practice is to avoid this

approach as it often leads to segregation or these blocks being treated as poor ghettos. Why not

have the affordable units mixed throughout the site?

Encouraging amenities in commercial units: Having attended many consultations we know that a

common concern is lack of amenities like nurseries, doctors, dentists, etc. All these new residents

will put a strain on already stretched amenities so we would like to see some of these included as

part of this development. Developers often state that their commercial units could be used for

healthcare or community spaces - we would like to see the developer put in place long term

controls or covenants that consistently favour these highly valued amenities. E.g. a covenant that

stipulates a commercial unit must be for community healthcare.

Density: The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimum

densities. This part of the city is clearly defined as an optimum density of 120 dwellings per

hectare. This development appears to be about 850 dwellings (450+400 student units) across 1.6

ha. This is about 530 dph which is over 450% of the optimum density suggested.

The SPD helpfully points out "Recent research (Superdensity- HTA et al 2015) has shown that

very high density can challenge positive response to context, successful placemaking and

liveability aspirations, sometimes resulting in poor quality development."

As a neighbour we welcome gentle density to support the need for homes. This proposal is simply

excessive and will not create a nice place to live. If this proposal were all 6-8 storeys high, such as

the successful Wapping Wharf development, this would be a very significant increase in density

for the area (and likely still above the optimum!). We could probably support this scale of

development, but not the hyper densities this proposal offers.

In summary, we appreciated the time and energy spent by your team and feel there are many

valuable aspects of this development. However, we have several significant concerns mostly

around wildly excessive height and density. We would welcome an alternative proposal with a

maximum height of 6-7 storeys and feel this would be much more acceptable for the local

community.

We look forward to engaging further to create a sustainable, healthy community that will be a

welcome place to live for decades into the future.

There have been several new student accommodations built in the area in the recentyears, a 19 storey tower block in this area would entirely change the make up of theneighbourhood, which in many cases is elderly people and young families. The sense ofcommunity in this area would completely change with hundreds more transient students.

There are already planned residents parking schemes to deal with the problem of overcrowdingand lack of parking for residents in the area which would be considerably worse with more people,especially since the planned development is a 'no car development'.

There is already a strain on amenities. I have a disability and currently am waiting for around 3weeks to get a GP appointment. There is only one bus route linking the area to the city which isusually overcrowded. Unless there is a plan to increase amenities the strain on what their currentlyis will be intolerable.

We hugely appreciate that Victoria Park is a relatively natural habitat and a dark sky. Lightpollution from this development would ruin the dark sky of the park. It would also impact theskyline from across the park.

I would strongly recommend that the planning department refuse planning permission for thisdevelopment and focus on building the affordable homes this area and Bristol in generaldesperately needs.

I object to the development as it will severely impact the green space in the area andthe development is also prioritising students and Bedminster green has already largely beendeveloped for student accommodation.

Community input was asked for this development but has largely been ignored. This developmentplan needs to be revised in order to fit in with community needs and the existing community.

I object to this enormous 19 storey development, as it goes beyond the existing heightlevel of already over-towering blocks in the area and it would obscure the wonderful views whichbought us to the area in the first place.

We are already witnessing the parks being littered with rubbish and the noise levels increasingsince the influx of students in the area and we really don't need any more of this.

There already aren't enough parking, doctor or dental spaces and the infrastructure just couldn'tcope.

That is excessively high. I understand that something could be built there, but there's noneed for it to be that tall and block so much

As a local resident I have seen an enormous quantity of high-density studentaccommodation built in my area over the last 5 years. I assume this is because developers canget away with smaller apartments than usual planning regulations allow, so can generate greaterprofit. No additional local resources are being provided in an already stressed and overcrowdedneighbourhood. At best we will have to endure a transient student population that is not invested inthe local community, at worst these units will be sold off as cheap housing stock without adequatesupport services in place for the increasing population. Parking is already a nightmare in this areaand there is no provision for extra parking in this development, or doctor surgeries, or schooling.

This will not only change the landscape and complete characteristics is ourneighbourhood but also ruin the community and add pressure to already overstretched services.It's an abomination of a plan.

Excessive light pollution very close to St Mary Redcliffe primary school. Overcrowdingand congestion in an already congested and over developed area. Putting more studentaccommodation over ordinary housing in an area which has just had a massive influx of studentaccommodation in the last couple of years. I feel this area of south Bristol is almost at saturationpoint and there is no regard for the local residents and community.

I am very concerned at the proposed 18 storey building. It would loom over VictoriaPark, a park which is very well used by local residents. It would also dominate the area as a wholeand such high density is known to be bad for mental health of residents. My understanding of theWhitehouse St Regeneration Framework consultation was that residents expressed a preferencefor mix of market and affordable homes to help address Bristol housing crisis. We need morefamily homes, not student blocks, especially as there are such large numbers of children in Bristolliving in temporary accommodation.

19 storey was not the original design.

Strongly object as towers this tall are in contrast with the local landscape and there arenot adequate public facilities to cope with the sheer number of additional people this would bring tothe area, e.g Victoria Park already can't handle the amount of litter, lack of toilets etc

It's the most inappropriate size for the area. There is already huge congestion in theWhitehouse Road area trying to get on to York Road and not enough thought has gone into how tomanage the traffic.

It is also utterly devastating that the view point of the city from the park, where people congregateto enjoy the view and sunset will be completely abolished. The health benefits, both physical andmental of our beautiful park and its views in the middle of an increasingly busy city are enormousand this development will have a hugely detrimental impact on all of us.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Development Management Team,

I am writing to submit my formal objection to planning application reference 25/11778/F, relating to

the proposed phased redevelopment of land located south of Princess Street, Bedminster. While

the applicant-Galliard Apsley Partnership-claims that the scheme is grounded in the principles of

the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF) and the Urban Living Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD), I am compelled to express serious concerns that the proposal

significantly diverges from these guiding documents in several key respects, particularly regarding

building height and transportation planning.

Despite the numerous documents submitted to support this application, including the Planning

Statement, Transport Assessment, and Health Impact Assessment, the scheme fails to respect

the strategic vision outlined in the planning policy framework it purports to adhere to.

Excessive Scale and Building Height

A major concern lies in the proposed scale of development, most notably Block D, which would

reach 19 storeys, and Block C, with parts rising to 14 storeys. These proposed heights far exceed

what is considered appropriate for this part of the site under the WSRF. The Framework, as

quoted in the applicant's Statement of Community Involvement, defines a "contextual tall building"

in this location as one of approximately 30 metres in height (around 10 storeys). The proposed

scale thus represents an overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the intended urban form and

local character.

Community feedback during the consultation phase indicated significant concern over these

building heights. Some respondents described the proposals as overwhelming, likening the effect

to that of a "canyon." Even with minor revisions made to reduce the height of Block D to 18

storeys, the applicant acknowledges that these alterations fall short of addressing public

opposition. As such, a maximum height of 10 storeys would more appropriately reflect the WSRF

and achieve a more harmonious integration with the surrounding environment.

The scheme's residential density-estimated at over 500 dwellings per hectare-further compounds

concerns about scale. This figure starkly contrasts with the Urban Living SPD's indicative density

of 120 dph for this area, although the WSRF does concede that denser forms may be suitable in

more accessible city centre locations. Nevertheless, the proposed density appears excessive and

at odds with both policy guidance and community expectations.

Inadequate Transport and Parking Provision

The development is designed to be predominantly car-free, save for provision for disabled parking.

While the Transport Assessment maintains that the site enjoys excellent accessibility and is well-

connected to public transport networks, the practical realities suggest otherwise. Temple Meads

station lies more than one kilometre from the site, and nearby bus stops are approximately 600-

800 metres distant. These distances, combined with current limitations in local public transport

infrastructure, cast doubt on the assertion that the site is truly suited to a car-free model at the

proposed scale.

Residents have expressed scepticism about the feasibility of such a strategy, particularly in terms

of displaced parking pressure on neighbouring streets. The development offers insufficient

mitigation measures, relying on assumptions about sustainable transport choices without

delivering the infrastructure required to make them viable. To be feasible, the application should

include clearly defined, secured initiatives such as car club provision, detailed arrangements for

deliveries (e.g., grocery drop-offs), comprehensive cycle storage beyond basic standards, and

tangible commitments to support local parking controls. The absence of such measures suggests

the burden of unresolved transport impacts would fall unfairly on the local authority and existing

residents.

Additional Grounds for Objection

Further to the concerns already outlined, I wish to raise the following additional objections:

Construction Disruption: Although mitigation measures are proposed via a Construction

Environmental Management Plan, the impacts of noise, vibration, and air quality during the build

phase are likely to cause significant temporary disturbance to local residents.

Loss of Employment and Business Space: The redevelopment will displace existing commercial

and industrial uses. While new commercial floorspace is proposed, there is no robust evidence

that the overall number of jobs will be preserved, in direct conflict with the WSRF's goal of

avoiding net job losses.

Student Accommodation Concentration: A significant proportion of the scheme is allocated to

Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA), despite local concerns about the proliferation of

student housing and its effect on the social fabric. While the applicant argues that this is

permissible under policy, there remains unease regarding the implications of a transient population

in this area.

Affordable Housing Segregation: The concentration of affordable housing within a single block

(Block A) raises issues regarding social integration and equitable access to amenities. Best

practice in urban design recommends tenure-blind distribution of affordable units across

developments.

Implementation of Car-Free Strategy: Beyond headline statements, there is a lack of commitment

to the specific operational mechanisms required to implement a genuinely car-free lifestyle,

including measures for deliveries, micro-mobility, and other last-mile transport solutions.

Visual and Townscape Impact: The significant building heights proposed are likely to adversely

affect important local views and the character of the Bedminster Conservation Area, with the

tallest tower intruding conspicuously on the skyline.

Daylight and Sunlight Loss: While the applicant references flexibility in applying BRE guidance to

dense urban environments, the daylight/sunlight report does acknowledge shortfalls affecting

existing neighbouring properties, notably at 3 Sargeant Street.

In summary, this proposal, in its current form, represents a substantial departure from the

aspirations of the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework and Urban Living SPD. The

development's excessive scale, unsound transport strategy, and numerous unresolved community

concerns suggest that it does not constitute sustainable or context-sensitive regeneration.

I respectfully urge Bristol City Council to refuse planning permission for this application, or at the

very least, require substantial revisions secured by binding conditions and planning obligations, to

ensure genuine alignment with the city's adopted planning policy framework.

Yours faithfully,

I am writing as a long-standing resident of Totterdown, a vibrant and diverse community, toformally object to planning application \[25/11778/F].

1. Environmental Impact, Noise, and Pollution

The proposed development poses serious concerns regarding its environmental impact. Theproximity of the construction to Victoria Park, a designated Urban Dark Sky Site, is particularlytroubling. Increased light pollution will directly compromise this valuable local asset, which servesas a rare refuge from urban brightness. Furthermore, the construction and long-term occupancy ofa 19 + 2-storey student accommodation complex will contribute to significant increases in noise,air pollution, and disruption to local ecosystems. This site borders both sensitive green spaces andestablished residential areas, amplifying the impact.

Given the scale and sensitive location of the development, I strongly urge the council to require afull Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before any further consideration.

2. Traffic and Transportation

The addition of over 850 dwellings (including more than 400 student units) will place significantstrain on existing transport infrastructure. Local roads, already congested, will struggle to copewith increased traffic, deliveries, and service access. There is limited parking availability, and

public transport capacity in the area is already under pressure. These issues will be compoundedduring the construction phase.

3. Character, Appearance, and Design

The proposed high rise buildings are completely out of scale with the surrounding area. TheWhitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF) and the Urban Living SupplementaryPlanning Document (SPD) both highlight that the prevailing building height in this area is 3-4storeys,with a potential for up to 10 storeys in specific contextual locations. Nowhere do thesedocuments support towers of 19-21 storeys.

This proposal would overwhelm the skyline, negatively affect the visual character of theneighbourhood, and fail to respect the historic and architectural context.The Statement ofCommunity Involvement (SCI) shows that building height was the biggest concern raised byresidents. These concerns appear to have been ignored.

4. Density and Liveability

The proposed density of approximately 530 dwellings per hectare (dph) is over 450% above theoptimal 120 dph recommended for this area by the Urban Living SPD. This kind of superdensity,as highlighted by the SPD and referenced in studies like Superdensity - HTA et al (2015), leads topoor quality development, challenges to placemaking, and reduced liveability. High density canand should be achieved with appropriate building heights and better integration.

5. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Services

This development will introduce a substantial new population with minimal provision for supportinginfrastructure. There are no plans for increased school capacity or increased investment forexisting institutions, healthcare provision, or amenities. Local GP surgeries, schools, and publicservices are already under pressure. Adding this level of demand will stretch resources tobreaking point, negatively impacting both new and existing residents.

6.Privacy and Neighbouring Properties

The scale and height of the proposed buildings will lead to overlooking, loss of privacy, and anoppressive sense of enclosure for existing nearby homes. These effects are unjustifiable and failto respect the needs and rights of current residents.

In Summary:

We do need new housing, but it must be appropriate, affordable, sustainable, and community-focused. This development is massively over-scaled, environmentally damaging, and lacking in

the infrastructure needed to support it. It undermines the stated aims of making the area safe,inclusive, and sustainable, and fails to deliver a design that respects local character or thewellbeing of residents.

I urge the council to reject this application in its current form and instead promote developmentthat is better scaled, better designed and better suited to the needs and identity of this part ofBristol.

SummaryBS3 Planning approve this development in principal as it offers a new residential neighbourhoodwith active commercial spaces particularly if they create space for interaction and residents'wellbeing activities. However there is real concern for the quality of the design, the excessiveheight, and lack of care in the liveability of the overall concept and requires further consideration tointegrate the design of the public realm.

Unfortunately the design has gone against some very clear local feedback that was captured aspart of the extensive consultation process, as facilitated by Action Greater Bedminster. Thisconsultation resulted in the creation of a detailed framework which was meant to ensure that thissite was developed within clear parameters and as part of a cohesive whole.

The BS3 Planning Group therefore strongly object to this application for the reasons as detailedbelow:

DesignThe height and density of the development exceeds the original framework.Evidenced by one tower of excessive height(19 stories + ground floor and mezzanine) a studentblockpositioned to one side of the 'best view' from Victoria Park across the city which will impact on StMaryRedcliffe spire, has City wide importance as Victoria Park can be seen from Park street and St

Michaels Hill, and either side of Bristol University.

Block D has been lowered but we would like to see the architectural design improved, asrecommended in the Urban Design SPD for buildings of over 10 storeys.Similarly, we recommend reduction to size of Block C and concerned that Block D breaches theskyline andreduces views of Victoria Park from Park St and St Michaels Hill.The plaza at Block A is welcomed we recommend integrating more strongly with other publicrealm spacesBlock D seems to have a heavy focus on car use, we would be pleased to see this reduced.Recommend public space to be used where possible for amenity and play.

Daylight and sunlightWe have taken care to assess the effects on daylight and sunlight reaching the rooms andgardens of existing York Road residential properties facing Block D which have not been assessedand in our view should be. Due to the density of the proposed blocks, a large proportion of the newflats will have inadequate daylight and sunlight leading to poor living conditions (as shown in thestudy included in the application.)

HousingPBSA does not appear in the Whitehouse Framework.BS3 Planning Experts are finding it hard to understand why it has been included, given that weestimate there are already over 1393 student beds in different blocks within a mile of Princess St.Greater Bedminster has already exceeded the amount of PBSA accommodation and we areparticularly aware the need is reducing.

PBSA accommodation is used a statutory requirement for students for Year 1. In Year 2 there isevidence that students then look for private accommodation in shared houses thereby pushing uprental rates and reducing opportunities for families and people moving into the area.

We are concerned that an affordable and market rent accommodation should be mixed, andindistinguishable from each other. For example, Umberslade Development managed a good mix inWapping Wharf of housing association and open market accommodation.The site is developed with currently full live employment as a PIWA. This proposal completelyerases this witha housing and PBSA dominated vision, that will tower above the Hill (Victoria Park) changing farmore thanviews from same to the North and West, (highlighted in the consultation boards Dec 2024)Block A is affordable.BS3 is concerned that the affordable accommodation hasn't acquired a registered provider as yet.An essential requirement and should be a condition for planning.

Environment/TreesBS3 Planning encourage creating more green/wild spaces. There is real potential for negativeimpact on Victoria Park ecology from excessive use by residents and animals and light pollutionfrom new builds, BS3 has an active bat population it is essential that green corridors providehabitats and routes for movement.Reference recent BS3 Bat Survey

LiveabilityToo Long corridorsLack of external ventilation single aspect apartmentsWhy doesn't every apartment have some kind of balcony?Play area will be used for temporary energy centre till 2028

Commercial spaces/Night time economy and LeisureConcerned that not enough thought has gone into what is needed, and what is being offered.East St is beginning to look viable ,so there is concern for Princess St commercial activity to be incompetitionRecommend focus on leisure, health and artists' studios (re BV Studios and Spike Island Studios).

TransportGood access to walking and cycling routes and local train station lie over 400m away at presentThe active travel version of Princess Street to St Lukes road does not yet exist and is currentlybanjaxed by themotor college and Spring Street Temporary Secondary School which is not about to leaveSouthville , asSilverthorne Lane school is not yet being built.But are routes safe and secure? Not yet.

In conclusion we consider that the scheme as designed does not balance the increased density forthe area, with the requirements for liveability as outlined in the Urban Living SPD. Thedevelopment will create an almost solid wall and mask views to and from Victoria Park.

I don't understand how more expensive student accommodation is being prioritised at atime when international students (who are the target) limits have been raised. If there's a real needfor student housing why can't it be in Clifton near the university? Surely the priority is good, lowrise building for local people? Why is a 19 storey building being built directly next to a park (andlocation) where people go specifically to collectively sit and watch the sun go down? Do we needmore light pollution and congestion? Why could to smaller blocks be built. It feels like localpeople's voices have been entirely ignored

The Panel objects to these proposals. The Framework for the redevelopment of thearea neither envisaged student use nor such tall buildings. This precedent-setting scheme wouldlead to adverse impacts on the settings of listed buildings and Conservation Areas throughout thecity and, locally, on the setting of and views from Victoria Park, which is itself a historic park andgarden; this would conflict with Policy BCS22 of the Local Plan. The tall buildings proposed are upto 13 and 19 storeys (c.f. this is 2.5 times the height of Windmill Hill in Victoria Park). Thesubmitted TVIA and montages underplay the potential visual impact. e.g. Block D is at least 10stories above tree canopy in wide angle but under 40% of vista is covered at scale and excludeblocks A and D and most of B. The applicants were advised in early consultations that if tallbuildings were proposed, then the design would need to contribute positively to the skyline; thisdesign is bland and excessively high and does not contribute in this way.

This building is way too high and out of keeping with the area and detrimental tosurroundings residents. It should not exceed the height of any existing high rises.

Far too tall. Don't ruin the neighbourhood.

A terrible idea that no local resident would ever be in favour of.

There are too many high rise blocks going up that spoil the sky line and there are noaccompanying green spaces offered putting a strain on current park (Victoria park). Make it lower .

I strongly object to the scale of this development. The tower block will exceed theexisting skyline from almost any viewpoint from the north east and west and the greatly disturb theexisting view from Victoria Park.The overall scheme contributes little to the urban streetscape at ground level with gated carparks.The tall buildings will cast long shadows and create ground level wind tunnels making the areauninhabitable and impossible to enjoy for pedestrians.

This is an over-dominant, anonymous, joyless scheme that will blight the neighbourhood forever.

There is already a huge number of student accommodation being built in Bristol.Housing for local residents is what is required. Students are a transitory population which woulddetract from the local community and the city's services not being eligible to pay council tax.

Too tall, overpowering the local primary school where my daughter is.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I would like you to refer to the objection made by TRESA residential group - "Response

to development of Princess Street" dated 14/12/24 Simon Hobeck and his many areas of concern.

We would like to highlight these again to ensure that they are included in this objection.

Unfortunately, some developers are prone to cherry-picking positive comments and ignoring the

serious concern of local people. I live on as a teenager and would truly benefit from a

more sustainable, healthy community space for the future.

Height: This is one of our biggest concern and we note that it was a common concern of others

who visited the 'consultation' event. It needs to be addressed. The 19-storey tower is totally

unacceptable. It is massively over-sized for this area and will create an overbearing tower block

that dominates the surroundings and adversely impact the skyline.

During the consultation event the architect claimed that the Council's Urban Living SPD was not

relevant as the Whitehouse regeneration framework superseded it. This is not correct. The

regeneration framework explicitly cites the SPD and in many places restates that the SPD is

relevant. The framework and the SPD mention the prevailing height of this area as 3-4 storeys. So

amplified height of 1.5x is 4-6 storeys. The framework mentions the possibility (not eventuality) of

a contextual taller building at a particular site and suggests 10 storeys. Nowhere does the

framework document mention a 21-storey tower. The framework also notes that citizens were

concerned by excessive building height (page 32).

We feel this proposal is just an outright insult and a mockery of the framework.

Views: The 19-storey tower will loom over the area. Although much was made in the 'consultation'

about key views across the city from the viewing point in Victoria Park, there are numerous views

that would be adversely punctuated by an 'anywhere architecture' oblong tower. It is worth

remembering that Bedminster is a conservation area that has special character and appearance.

The stated aim of Bristol City Council is to preserve or enhance them.

Car Free: We recognise the ambition to be totally car free but have some concerns on the

practicality. Many of the residents will own vehicles - so where will they go? Do you expect the

local streets to just absorb the extra vehicles?

This area is not well served by public transport.

Temple Meads station is over 1km away.

The bus stop by Temple meads is about 800m.

The bus stop at Bedminster Parade is about 600m away.

Given this, we would have liked to see much more on the mitigations in place to make this

workable. E.g. Areas dedicated to car clubs, special areas set aside for supermarket delivery

vehicles, better storage and access for bicycles, clearer designs for cycle lanes, dedicated electric

scooter parking locations, all to make life easier without a car - rather than just removing parking

altogether and simply hoping it works. Perhaps the area could have a residents parking scheme to

ensure local streets are not overrun with cars. We would ask the developer to actively push for this

rather than leave it for the council to resolve separately. Regarding the ambition to be car free It

feels as though these real problems are being ignored and left for the council to cover.

Student block: We are unsure about this. There are already several large developments in

progress with dedicated student accommodation. Is there really the demand for this? Over

concentration of student accommodation does not lend itself to healthy, dynamic communities

(due to the transitory nature of the students). We would prefer to see more homes rather than

squeezing in smaller units. This feels like an attempt at extracting more money from the site rather

than creating a balanced community.

Affordable block: We welcome the affordable units yet would have preferred to see a range of

social provision as well - rather than just "affordable" (which is still not affordable as most people

understand the term).

The current design has all affordable units in a separate block. Best practice is to avoid this

approach as it often leads to segregation or these blocks being treated as poor ghettos. Why not

have the affordable units mixed throughout the site?

Encouraging amenities in commercial units: Having attended many consultations we know that a

common concern is lack of amenities like nurseries, doctors, dentists, etc. All these new residents

will put a strain on already stretched amenities so we would like to see some of these included as

part of this development. Developers often state that their commercial units could be used for

healthcare or community spaces - we would like to see the developer put in place long term

controls or covenants that consistently favour these highly valued amenities. E.g. a covenant that

stipulates a commercial unit must be for community healthcare.

Density: The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimum

densities. This part of the city is clearly defined as an optimum density of 120 dwellings per

hectare. This development appears to be about 850 dwellings (450+400 student units) across 1.6

ha. This is about 530 dph which is over 450% of the optimum density suggested.

The SPD helpfully points out "Recent research (Superdensity- HTA et al 2015) has shown that

very high density can challenge positive response to context, successful placemaking and

liveability aspirations, sometimes resulting in poor quality development."

As a neighbour we welcome gentle density to support the need for homes. This proposal is simply

excessive and will not create a nice place to live. If this proposal were all 6-8 storeys high, such as

the successful Wapping Wharf development, this would be a very significant increase in density

for the area (and likely still above the optimum!). We could probably support this scale of

development, but not the hyper densities this proposal offers.

In summary, we appreciated the time and energy spent by your team and feel there are many

valuable aspects of this development. However, we have several significant concerns mostly

around wildly excessive height and density. We would welcome an alternative proposal with a

maximum height of 6-7 storeys and feel this would be much more acceptable for the local

community.

We look forward to engaging further to create a sustainable, healthy community that will be a

welcome place to live for decades into the future.

I strongly object to the concept of the 19 storey towerblock proposed at the WhitehouseStreet Trading Estate.

The scale and height of the proposed development are completely out of keeping with thesurrounding area, which is predominantly low-rise. A 19-storey tower represents anoverdevelopment of the site.

The design and massing of the tower will dominate the local skyline and adversely affect viewsand the character of the area.

The height of the building will lead to overshadowing of nearby properties, reducing natural lightand privacy for existing residents.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Objection to Planning Application 25/11778/F

Dear Planning Officer,

I am writing to formally object to planning application 25/11778/F. While I recognise the need for

regeneration in this area, I believe the current proposal is fundamentally flawed in terms of its

scale, visual impact, public amenity provision, and architectural quality.

My objections are as follows:

1. Inappropriate Scale and Visual Impact

The proposed 20-storey tower is entirely out of character with the surrounding built environment

and local vernacular. It introduces a scale that is alien to this part of the city.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) claims the tower will have 'negligible

effects' (8.1.6), which is difficult to accept. In reality, the height and bulk of the development will

have a severe negative impact on one of South Bristol's best long views, as well as on key

vantage points such as Cabot Tower.

The LVIA refers to the Whitehouse Street Framework (section 5.4) to justify the building's scale,

but the framework does not explicitly support buildings of this height. This proposal is out of step

with both the intent and spirit of the guidance.

2. Lack of Adequate Green and Play Space

The development proposes a high density of new homes, including for families, without offering

sufficient new green or recreational space.

Victoria Park is already under pressure and under-served, especially in terms of play facilities.

This scheme will increase demand on the park without offering meaningful on-site alternatives.

The minor play elements included in the scheme are inadequate in addressing the needs of a

growing local population.

3. Impact on Victoria Park's Dark Skies and Ecosystem

Victoria Park benefits from relatively low light pollution and is a valued local 'dark skies' area. The

introduction of a tall building in close proximity will disrupt this, impacting both wildlife and the

tranquil character of the park.

The overshadowing and increased artificial lighting associated with the development will harm an

already sensitive ecological environment.

4. Design Quality and Urban Experience

The building lacks architectural interest and makes little contribution to the character or identity of

the area.

It fails to meet the principles of the 'Humanise' manifesto, particularly regarding street-level

engagement, visual richness, and quality of public realm.

If this is to be one of Bristol's tallest buildings, it should be held to a higher design standard.

Instead, it risks becoming another uninspired addition to the city's skyline - similar to the recent

university building near Temple Meads, which has received widespread criticism for its blandness.

5. Does the city really need more student accommodation, from what I understand, intake is low

across higher education, there is already a new tower going up in St Phillips Marsh. The city really

needs affordable housing more than it needs more student lets.

Conclusion

In summary, this proposal is out of scale, out of character, and under-delivers on public benefit. I

urge the planning authority to reject the application in its current form and to seek a scheme that

better respects its context, provides for local needs, and contributes positively to Bristol's urban

fabric.

Yours faithfully,

I object to the significant impact this development will have on the sightline visible fromVictoria Park, in particular from the overlook viewpoint.

This building is so huge, overshadowing the green space viewpoint.

No doubt the area needs work, and of course it is a waste at the moment. But theproposed plan doesn't fit at all with the surroundings. We don't need such a massive buildingthere, which will only serve to add chaos to what is probably one of the most congested areas inBristol. Build something, but not another eye sore please.

This site and surrounding area is in desperate need of development. However, thisdevelopment is about 15 stories too high, and brings nothing of note to an already busy area.There would be far too much demand on nurseries, primary and secondary schools, the viewsfrom the park would be taken away from the city. Houses for families are what is needed in thearea as it was prior it becoming an industrial site.

With the recent builds in Bedminster off east street for university accommodation, itfeels inappropriate for another sizeable build within the area. The size and height of the proposedbuild gives me great concern in that it will ruin the landscape of totterdown and Victoria park,permanently. I would rather the university consider renovating existing buildings rather thanseeking new builds.

I don't object to building accomodation on this area. I do object to the height of thebuilding. 20+ stories will absolutely destroy the view in and around Victoria Park.

Make the building less tall. This is excessive.

The sheer scale of this development is too much for the area. Bedminster has seensignificant growth in population recently (both permanent and student populations) and a furtherdevelopment of this magnitude will place strain on local health and education services. It is alreadyvery hard to get a doctor appointment. Furthermore, the ludicrously small amount of parkingprovided will lead to a massive increase in demand for on street parking, far beyond capacity.Whilst I accept that sustainable transport links are quite good, thinking that over a thousandpeople will be living without cars is wishful thinking.

The Bedminster area has become saturated, I can barely get a doctors appointment atthe moment and such a large development will put undue pressure on local infrastructure, to thedetriment of existing locals. The massive increase in the local student population results in acorresponding massive increase in demand for public services, from a temporary population whichdoes not contribute taxes to support those services. The imbalance of student and permanentpopuations will lead to a loss of community.

The planned development is too large, and will fundamentally change the skyline andnature of the area. There are no other buildings of this scale anywhere nearby, and it isdisproportionate to build something so large. I would also question whether there is really sufficientdemand to justify such a dramatic change - there are countless cases of overspecceddevelopments sitting empty after developers have gotten greedy.

The same plan but capped at ten stories would make much more sense on every level.

This proposal poses a serious threat to Victoria Park, a vital green space in ourcommunity. A tower block of this scale would cause excessive light pollution, particularly harmfulin an area valued for its dark skies. It would also visually dominate the skyline, negativelyimpacting views from across the park and undermining the character of the area.

This development quite clearly prioritizes the interests of developers over the needs of the widercommunity. South Bristol urgently needs affordable family housing-not another high-rise studentblock that contributes little to long-term community sustainability.

The influx of 400 students will inevitably exacerbate existing problems with traffic, parkingpressure, and strain on local infrastructure and public transport. We are already being expected topay higher and higher rates of council tax for lower and lower levels of service. Students will addto the strain on council services without contributing any council tax.

This proposal ignores extensive community feedback gathered during the consultation process. Itundermines the voices of local residents and park users who have consistently called fordevelopments that respect and preserve our community's character and needs.

This tower block is out of scale, out of place, and out of touch with what our community wants andneeds. I urge the planning authorities to reject this application and uphold the priorities of localresidents over profit-driven developers.

I do not think we need more high Intensity living.We have had a number of Towe Blocks erected in the area, for students.There is already a strain on local amenities and I feel this would add to this.We need more affordable housing , but not in the form of Tower Blocks .

Impacts green space and prioritises students over much needed affordable housing

The proposed development would change the area in a detrimental way.

Stretched local services and facilities (medical, dental, library, schools, parks, etc.) are not beingchanged to accommodate the influx of people in this scale of development. Approval of adevelopment lile this without substantial local improvements would make life worse for current andfuture residents.

The development is huge and utterly out of place compared with the local housing stock. Otherdevelopments have been made nearby that don't rise like this one and fit in with the local urbanenvironment rather than dominating it.

While the car-free aim of this development is a wonderful aspiration it seems very likely that somepercentage of residents will own a car and park it locally. Even a small percentage of the hugenumber of new residents doing this would cause real issues as parking is already overloaded.

It appears huge, blocks views where people stop and enjoy the sunset from the park andotherwise looms over all the reasonable local buildings.

This scheme shows very little consideration for current or future residents. It stands out like theproverbial sore thumb. It seems entirely set up to maximize population density in the availablefootprint at the expense of the local environment and quality of life.

Windmill Hill City Farm strongly objects to this proposal. The height and scale of thedevelopment is completely disproportionate to other buildings in the area and will impinge on theamenity of the nearby park making it less attractive to people (eg destroyed views, a sense ofbeing overshadowed) and wildlife (eg additional light pollution).The density of the development is way above that recommended in the planning framework thatwas developed with considerable effort and community input. Accepting such a development (19storeys in a space where 10 was the maximum considered, and 3-4 is the norm) will destroy anylast shreds of confidence the community has in engaging in such processes. There seems to belittle thought given to the impact of so many additional people in such a small area putting unduestrain on local amenities (healthcare, schools, green spaces, parking etc).The quality of design in the proposal is generic, characterless and anonymous. It could be a blockanywhere. No attempt has been made to imbue it with any sense of place, let alone one fitting tothis place.The mix of use is imbalanced with too little employment opportunity to replace displacedbusinesses on the site and a preference for student accommodation rather than affordable (oreven unaffordable) homes.The choice of views presented in the planning documents are at best disingenuous and could beinterpreted as trying to hide the true impact and scale of the block. That it is not visible from StNics Market is irrelevant.

I object to these plans because they appear to have ignored community voices and willlead to further unbalanced development prioritising student accommodation over long-term localresidency. The high density accommodation will cause increased traffic and strain on Parkingwithout commensurate public service provision and the building will impact the green space ofVictoria Park with light pollution as well as spoiling views of the skyline across to the city.

Objection due to unsuitable height of building for the heavily utilised park andlandscape. Light pollution will disrupt wildlife in an otherwise dark sky area. Parking and trafficunable to support development. Ignore community to plan a building 9 stories above therecommended maximum height in the area.

No to 19 storey tower block ,and overcrowding and congestion in an alreadyoverstrained area needing affordable housing.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I live on the famous street with the view over Bristol that you can see

as a viewpoint all over the city. This 19 storey tower block would block out this view and destroy

the landmark. Many of us in Totterdown are not opposed to new housing projects but this

proposed block is so high and dense and frankly unattractive it has upset a lot of people. The new

development at St Catherine's Court in Bedminster is really nice and beautifully designed and

considered - as is the new redevelopment next to Asda. I am struggling to understand why the

council is so keen to destroy landmark views of our amazing city when it would be so easy to build

a lower more ergonomically designed block instead? In the centre in Cabot circus it is cold and

dark and very windy now thanks so the large high rise built on college green. My ex boyfriend had

a flat in that building and he said there was no community in the high rise. If the proposed block

that you want to build was lower and less condensed it's more likely that a community would be

forged and valued as opposed to a vast network of people separated . These huge tower blocks

ruin communities with loss of light, privacy and impact roads and schools and neighbourhoods.

The obsession with building high rises and chopping up and destroying of Bristol's amazing

skyline should be stopped and reconsidered!

I completely reject this proposal which will block the viewpoint from Victoria park. Thereare already multiple students block erected in the area please no more now.

I object because the Bedminster area, particularly the streets off of Whitehouse Lane,has seen 2-3 large scale student residences being built in the last 5 years. This has increased thepopulation of the Victoria park area and the usage of Victoria Park. Victoria Park is a key part ofthe local community. Another tall building of Whitehouse lane will impact the important views of thecity from the park.The area, which is a residential area, needs more permanent homes for local residents, includinghouses, rather then temporary accommodation for a transient population of students who will onlylive in the buildings for up to 8-9 months a year.

I object to this planning application for various reasons. Not only will the developmentbe unsightly and not in keeping with the local communities, but the area simply does not have theinfrastructure to take on so many more people.

The application also lacks any plan for the numerous important businesses already operating onthe site. It is well known that students are, for the most part, temporary inhabitants to Bristol.Whilst they may contribute to supermarkets, bars, restaurants and the like, they do not contributeto the other larger businesses carried out in the city, some of which already operate at this site.This is forcing those larger businesses out of the city and in turn their employees who are nolonger able to deal with the commuting times created by bringing more and more temporaryinhabitants into the city. This is taking wealth out of the city which will in turn impact house pricesfor those who have already chosen to buy a home here. I should note that during rush hour it cantake up to an hour to get from the Victoria park area to Aztec West and the main UWE campusand this continues to worsen as more and more people try to get around the city on a daily basis.

The documents provided in support of the application clearly identify that students want to livenear their study sites. This site is not sufficiently close enough to study sites to permit walking.Sitting on a bus wading through traffic isn't going to appeal to students in the long run and sothose pushed out to this site will no doubt bring cars with them. With no parking provided this willinevitably impact the local community where parking is already at a premium. So those who havebought their homes here will be blocked by temporary inhabitants without care for the communityimpact. There is also the obvious environmental impact this has at a time where Bristol has only

recently implemented a clean air zone to bring down emissions in the city.

I appreciate more housing is required in the area but what is really needed is houses for long terminhabitants wanting a home and willing to bring money into the city. There is already a seriousproblem with doctors and dental facilities in the area, not to mention poor public transport to crossthe city. This needs to be resolved as a priority before anyone else is brought into the area.

I'm unclear as to the long term strategy by bringing more and more students into the city, pushingthe wealth out.

There is already a very high student development nearby. This will block the view fromthe viewing point in nearby Victoria Park and there isn't sufficient infrastructure (doctors, dentistsetc) to support the additional adults.

This development will make the area too heavily full of students as well as too heavilydeveloped.The council is also not taking into account the opinions of local residents.The recent and proposed developments are totally changing the area

There are already far too many tower blocks being in this immediate area without anyadditional infrastructure being increased to cater for increase in residents. Residents on WindmillHill are already loosing views across the city towards Ashton and Clifton without further hugeblocks being built. Why to these blocks have to be so high, residents would be more accepting ifthe heights were decreased. As residents we have endured years of absolute yaks with all thebuilding work whilst trying to live here and commute to work around all the diversions andmayhem.

This development shows a real lack of community involvement. The design is absolutelyterrible and will create a real lack of light into the local area and across the park.The huge buildings will overshadow any surrounding development.

There is no parking provided within the development and this will create parking issuesIn the surrounding neighbourhoods.

There will be increased noise from the density of the development.

The ugly nature of the design will have a huge affect on the quality and character of thesurrounding areas.

The viewpoint from the park will be totally ruined and this will contribute to ruining the overallenjoyment of an area.

The design appearance of the development has no redeeming features and looks incongruouswith any nearby buildings.

We live very near to the park. We bought our house a few years ago and loved thearea. Since then, it has undergone massive development works already with nearly all of themdesigned for students. Parking is already a nightmare and this will just make things unbearable.We don't need another high rise spoiling the view and we don't need another ingress of studentsto an already over populated area where you can't see a doctor, get a dentist appointment, parkanywhere, struggle to buy a home, etc.

I'm worried about the access we'll have to our medical care, which is already tricky. I'malso worried about the traffic and lack of parking spaces it'll create on my road. Plus it willdefinitely ruin the skyline of Victoria park

Dramatic change to the landscape .. it will have an impact on the green space andintrude on the wildlife and birds there .. we need homes for families and individuals that were bornand raised here .

TRESA strongly objects to this application for the following reasons.

HEIGHT: The proposed ground+18-storey (i.e. 19-storey) tower is entirely out of proportion toother buildings in the area. It will harm the townscape and existing views, dominate thesurroundings and undermine the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework. This is one of ourbiggest concerns and we note that it is a common concern of others. It needs to be addressed.The Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework and the Urban Living supplementary planningdocument (SPD) mention the prevailing height of this area as 3-4 storeys. Amplified height of 1.5xis 4-6 storeys. The framework mentions the possibility (not eventuality) of a contextual tallerbuilding at a particular site and suggests 10 storeys. Nowhere does the framework documentmention a 19-storey tower.

VIEWS: The proposed tower blocks will loom over the area and adversely impact the skyline.Although much was made in the 'consultation' about key views across the city from the viewingpoint in Victoria Park, there are numerous views that would be adversely punctuated by theproposed 'anywhere architecture' oblong towers.

DENSITY: The Urban Living SPD and the Whitehouse Regeneration Framework present optimumdensities. This part of the city is clearly defined as an optimum density of 120 dwellings perhectare. This development appears to be about 850 dwellings (450+400 student units) across 1.6ha. This is about 530 dph which is over 450% of the optimum density suggested. The SPDhelpfully points out: "Recent research (Superdensity- HTA et al 2015) has shown that very high

density can challenge positive response to context, successful place-making and liveabilityaspirations, sometimes resulting in poor quality development."

CONTEXT: The excessive height would create an overbearing presence that is completely out ofcharacter with the surrounding neighbourhood. The framework notes that buildings higher than 8storeys should have to be 'contextual and demonstrate high quality design'. The current proposalis clearly not high quality design. This is especially concerning given the proximity to theBedminster conservation area. The stated aim of Bristol City Council is to preserve and enhanceits special character and appearance. The part-listed terrace at York Road will also be impacted.

We also support the following points raised by other objectors.

TRANSPORT AND PARKING STRATEGY: A "car-free" development of this scale requirescomprehensive supporting infrastructure including: dedicated, accessible spaces for car clubs;clear arrangements for deliveries; cycle storage facilities beyond minimum standards; designatedzones for e-scooters and parcel services, and; financial support for a residents' parking scheme insurrounding areas.

STUDENT ACCOMMODATION CONCENTRATION: The inclusion of Purpose-Built StudentAccommodation (PBSA) has raised significant community concerns about the concentration oftransient populations and their impact on establishing cohesive communities. Local residents haveexpressed preference for a mix of market and affordable homes which will help to address Bristol'shousing shortage.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLACEMENT: Placing all affordable units in a separate block (Block A)risks creating unnecessary segregation rather than a "heterogeneous community".

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: It is clear that the developer has ignored community voices andhas failed to respect extensive consultation feedback.

An eyesore on the skyline. And not sensitive to the surroundings.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning application for a 21-storeybuilding inLand South Of Princess Street Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AG.As a local resident, I am extremely concerned about the negative impact this tall developmentwould have on our already dense neighbourhood. The proposed building would not only block vitalview over our city from our local park-one of the few green spaces available to residents which welike to sit and enjoy-but would also place further strain on our overstretched local services.

Our community is already facing significant challenges. For example, my local GP surgery isstruggling to provide timely appointments to existing patients and I hardly get any face to faceappointment but only phone calls as they do not have time for me, yet they are being forced toaccept even more patients due to ongoing population growth. Adding hundreds of new residentswithout a corresponding increase in infrastructure and services will only worsen this situation.

Furthermore, a building of this height and scale is entirely out of character with the surroundingarea. It would overshadow homes, able to look over our local school and endanger their privacy,reduce natural light, and fundamentally alter the character and live- ability of our neighbourhood.

I urge the planning committee to reject this application for such a tall building and instead prioritisedevelopments that enhance, rather than diminish, the quality of life for current residents. We needthoughtful, sustainable planning that protects our city's beauty and ensures essential services cancope with demand.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Windmill Hill has been negatively impacted by development in this region for the pastfew years due to constant work along Whitehouse Lane and workers parking on the hill. Thisproposed work not only serves to be an eyesore for Victoria Park, ruining the view of nearbyresidents, but also promises to cause further extensive disruption to commuting due to a lack ofviable route alternatives while the roads are affected by construction, and subsequently withincreased road users from the new accommodation. Proposed parking is insufficient for thenumber of new tenants, which will force cars onto Windmill Hill, a region that is alreadyovercrowded and has no parking restrictions.

The lower buildings are sympathetic, whereas the skyrise is surely a provocation? Howthis can be considered next to one of the largest and well needed parks in Bristol is remarkable.

Architecture is well understood to have far reaching influence on society, and this frankly hasfailed to comprehend the essential learnings from urban planning, and it's impact.

Please use your Univiersity town planning 101 training to ensure this is not permitted & a massivethank you in advance from the local residence for not negatively impacting our homes, lives andprospects.

This will alter the infrastructure significantly, especially given other recentdevelopments. There aren't the facilities to support, I.e doctors, dentists etc. It will have a hugelydetrimental effect on the local school.I object wholeheartedly, you cannot allow yet another of these developments to go ahead in thisarea.

This development has not been well thought through and the supporting infrastructure isnot in place such as parking, access to GP etc. It is also unsightly and not providingaccommodation for people to thrive. It seems to be designed to be cheap and not support goodoutcomes for the people who live there. Bedminster is already a run down area and needsconsidered development

Onject

Object!!!

The particular spot chosen here for the development is galling. On any given warmevening, hundreds of people come to sit on this slope and enjoy the view of the city. They walkhere from all over central Bristol.Even in a relatively hilly city there are very few places for this, and certainly nothing in the centralpart of the city. This development will completely wipe out the view, even the low rise portionblocking much of it, and the towers looming over the park intrusively.

The tower will loom over the whole park, dominating the view of the park from Totterdown, anddwarfing the pleasant Victorian school

The loss of local garages will mean local residents can no longer drop off their cars and walk backhome, adding longer car journeys and taxi rides back from garages further away

I can see zero new infrastructure for these hundreds of new residents, no parking, adding to morepressure on local streets where already, frequently, a single builder's lorry leaves residents literallytrapped in the neighbourhood.

The particular spot chosen here for the development is galling. On any given warmevening, hundreds of people come to sit on this slope and enjoy the view of the city. They walkhere from all over central Bristol.Even in a relatively hilly city there are very few places for this, and certainly nothing in the centralpart of the city. This development will completely wipe out the view, even the low rise portionblocking much of it, and the towers looming over the park intrusively.

The tower will loom over the whole park, dominating the view of the park from Totterdown, anddwarfing the pleasant Victorian school

The loss of local garages will mean local residents can no longer drop off their cars and walk backhome, adding longer car journeys and taxi rides back from garages further away

I can see zero new infrastructure for these hundreds of new residents, no parking, adding to morepressure on local streets where already, frequently, a single builder's lorry leaves residents literallytrapped in the neighbourhood.

I strongly object to the proposed planning application. The plans do not includeadequate parking infrastructure for the high increase in residents in an area already struggling withinadequate parking options. The increase in residents is likely to overwhelm the local schools,particularly St Mary Redcliffe Primary and the development itself is an eyesore. The proposed 21story tower in particular is a massive blight on a beautiful view from the park itself.

I strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

1. Height and Overdevelopment:The proposed 21-storey block is completely out of scale with the surrounding area and willnegatively impact the skyline, particularly from Victoria Park and our school. It feels inappropriateto place such a dense and tall development directly opposite a primary school.

2. Strain on Local Services:With over 1,400 new residents, there will be huge pressure on already overstretched local GPsand dentists. These services are extremely difficult to access as it is, and the proposal offers noclear solution.

3. Lack of Parking:Only 16 parking spaces are proposed. This is unrealistic and will push more cars onto nearbyresidential streets, worsening congestion and making the area less safe for children walking toschool.

4. Impact on School Environment:The building will overlook and dominate our local primary school, creating noise, disruption, andpotential safety risks during construction and beyond. This is not a suitable environment for youngchildren.

5. Excessive Density:The development far exceeds the suggested density for inner urban areas. This level ofintensification does not reflect the character of the neighbourhood and risks long-term issues withovercrowding and lack of local resources.

This development is not in keeping with our community and fails to adequately consider the impacton local residents, infrastructure, and schoolchildren.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:To Whom it May concern

I am a resident of and a

I am writing to object to the planning permission for this building.

My reasons are:

Building Height. Whilst the applicant has made adjustment to the height and it aligns with WSRF -

I feel that is the minimum. This building will impact on the sky line from Victoria Park which has

historically long been enjoyed and has a sky line walk and plaque built in the park to enjoy.

Disrupting this view would mean that heritage is covered up and not visible. As we know

Bristolians have a long history and must modernise with care to ensure history is not covered up. I

would support shorter buildings which still allow for views to be seen. I propose shorter buildings

not covering the skyline walk views http://bssw.org.uk/

Traffic.

Whilst the site is intended to be car free residents will still own cars which will be parked on street

parking in the local area which will drive cars to areas that are already densely for traffic.

The building work itself will cause traffic issues as have been going on since the heat pump work

started in 2022. Accessing Windmill Hill is complicated and often there is extra traffic by people

who don't live here trying to navigate road works- which adds to pollution.

Finally even when the building work is finished (still waiting for all the White House lane work to

finish since 2022) and the residents have cars who have parked in the local areas those who don't

have cars will still use taxis to pick them up and that will add to traffic in the local area which adds

to pollution and problems getting around in Bristol.

Like the rest of the development of this area, this proposal is far too high, completely outof kilter and will add yet more density to an area that appears to have been specifically singled outfor it.I await with interest the high rise proposals for Redland, Stoke Bishop & Clifton.South Bristol cannot be the entire solution for Bristol's housing needs, the developmentselsewhere are nowhere near this high, Temple Meads aside.

I realise new accommodation is needed but I have a problem with the height of theproposed flats. As it stands the view from Victoria Park overlooking the city would be spoiled. Tenor 12 floors is fine but 19 is too high.

I object to the application in its current form for the reasons listed below:

1. Scale - I feel the scale and mass of the proposal is inappropriate at the eastern end of the siteand should be dropped down to a level similar the west of the site, maybe up to 9/10 storeys.

2. Purpose Built Student Accommodation - I feel in the area there is a potential for an overconcentration of students with the Bedminster Green development and the potential for morestudent accommodation towards the new University campus.

3. Affordability - Will the type of student accommodation proposed be affordable? 50% studiosseem very high. Bristol already has vacant purpose-built student accommodation rooms as theyare unaffordable and it's more cost effective to get a flat in a Build to Rent scheme.

4. Parking - It is all very well stating that no parking is required because of the central location andpublic transport. In reality, people do have cars, and they will need to park them somewhere. I liveon windmill Hill, and we are already finding the streets a lot more busy and harder to find a parkingspace since the opening of the first buildings on Bedminster Green.

5. Victoria Park - All the new developments state Victoria Park as a local amenity but it is alreadybecoming overcrowded since new local developments. Also, there are insufficient bins for thenumber of people using the park and appalling toilet facilities, so people just use the woods when

my children used to play.

Bristol City Council needs to be very careful with how this area is developed. We need to makesure that the area around Victoria Park remains a desirable place to live for its current and futureinhabitants and not become overcrowded and with insufficient infrastructure to cope with thenumber of residents.

I strongly object to the proposed 19-storey student accommodation next to VictoriaPark. This development would irreparably damage the cherished view from the park, one of thefew green open spaces enjoyed by local residents, families, and wildlife. The towering structure iscompletely out of scale with the surrounding area and would cast long shadows, contribute to lightpollution, and ruin the natural skyline that gives the park its unique character.

Furthermore, this plan disregards the views of the local community and ignores feedback from theconsultation process. Prioritising corporate student housing over green space and balanceddevelopment sets a dangerous precedent. Victoria Park is a valued community asset, and thistower would permanently undermine its tranquil and open feel.

Please reject this inappropriate and harmful proposal.

Formal Objection to Planning Proposal - Application Ref: 25/11778/FI am writing to formally object to the planning proposal for a 19-storey building Land South OfPrincess Street Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AG, application reference 25/11778/F. I strongly believethis development is inappropriate and detrimental to our community, particularly concerning theviews from Victoria Park and the well-being of local residents and schoolchildren.Grounds for Objection:1. Unacceptable Height and Overdevelopment:The proposed 19-storey building is entirely out of scale with the existing character of thesurrounding area. Its excessive height will profoundly and negatively impact the Bristol skyline,significantly obstructing the cherished views from Victoria Park. Furthermore, the sheer density ofthis development, directly opposite a primary school, constitutes an egregious overdevelopment ofthe site and is wholly inappropriate for this residential context.2. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services:The addition of an estimated 1,400+ new residents will place an intolerable and unsustainableburden on already critically overstretched local services. Access to GP practices and dentalservices in this area is already exceptionally difficult, with residents facing extensive waiting times.The proposal offers no viable solutions or contributions to mitigate this significant additionalpressure, demonstrating a profound disregard for the existing infrastructure capacity.3. Inadequate Parking Provision and Increased Congestion:The provision of only 16 parking spaces for a development of this size is completely unrealisticand irresponsible. This severe under-provision will inevitably lead to a substantial increase in on-street parking in already congested residential areas, exacerbating traffic flow issues and

significantly compromising road safety, particularly for children walking to the nearby primaryschool.4. Detrimental Impact on School Environment:The proposed building will loom over and dominate our local primary school. The proximity andscale of the development will result in significant noise and disruption during the constructionphase, and once completed, will create an oppressive environment for young children. This isfundamentally unsuitable for a primary school setting and raises serious concerns regarding theamenity, safety, and well-being of pupils and staff.5. Excessive Density and Character Erosion:The proposed density of this development far exceeds the recommended guidelines for innerurban areas. This level of intensification is completely out of keeping with the establishedcharacter of the neighbourhood and risks creating long-term issues related to overcrowding,reduced quality of life, and a severe deficit of local resources.In conclusion, this planning proposal fundamentally fails to integrate with our community anddemonstrably disregards the profound negative impacts it will have on local residents, criticalinfrastructure, and the daily lives of schoolchildren. I urge you to refuse this application.

Formal Objection to Planning Proposal - Application Ref: 25/11778/FI am writing to formally object to the planning proposal for a 19-storey building Land South OfPrincess Street Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AG, application reference 25/11778/F. I strongly believethis development is inappropriate and detrimental to our community, particularly concerning theviews from Victoria Park and the well-being of local residents and schoolchildren.Grounds for Objection:1. Unacceptable Height and Overdevelopment:The proposed 19-storey building is entirely out of scale with the existing character of thesurrounding area. Its excessive height will profoundly and negatively impact the Bristol skyline,significantly obstructing the cherished views from Victoria Park. Furthermore, the sheer density ofthis development, directly opposite a primary school, constitutes an egregious overdevelopment ofthe site and is wholly inappropriate for this residential context.2. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services:The addition of an estimated 1,400+ new residents will place an intolerable and unsustainableburden on already critically overstretched local services. Access to GP practices and dentalservices in this area is already exceptionally difficult, with residents facing extensive waiting times.The proposal offers no viable solutions or contributions to mitigate this significant additionalpressure, demonstrating a profound disregard for the existing infrastructure capacity.3. Inadequate Parking Provision and Increased Congestion:The provision of only 16 parking spaces for a development of this size is completely unrealisticand irresponsible. This severe under-provision will inevitably lead to a substantial increase in on-street parking in already congested residential areas, exacerbating traffic flow issues and

significantly compromising road safety, particularly for children walking to the nearby primaryschool.4. Detrimental Impact on School Environment:The proposed building will loom over and dominate our local primary school. The proximity andscale of the development will result in significant noise and disruption during the constructionphase, and once completed, will create an oppressive environment for young children. This isfundamentally unsuitable for a primary school setting and raises serious concerns regarding theamenity, safety, and well-being of pupils and staff.5. Excessive Density and Character Erosion:The proposed density of this development far exceeds the recommended guidelines for innerurban areas. This level of intensification is completely out of keeping with the establishedcharacter of the neighbourhood and risks creating long-term issues related to overcrowding,reduced quality of life, and a severe deficit of local resources.In conclusion, this planning proposal fundamentally fails to integrate with our community anddemonstrably disregards the profound negative impacts it will have on local residents, criticalinfrastructure, and the daily lives of schoolchildren. I urge you to refuse this application.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 20 storey development visible fromVictoria Park.

This development would significantly compromise the much loved panoramic views of Bristol'sskyline as seen from one of the city's most treasured public spaces. The height and scale of theproposal are entirely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. From the vantagepoint of Victoria Park - a popular and valued green space - the building appears overwhelminglydominant and starkly inappropriate in its current form.

Such an imposing structure would not only erode the park's visual appeal but also detract fromviews of nearby listed heritage assets. These historic landmarks form an essential part of Bristol'sidentity and should not be overshadowed by incongruous modern high rises.

Furthermore, the impact on the local community must not be underestimated. Increased pressureon parking, traffic, and infrastructure -as well as a potential loss of light and privacy for nearbyresidents -are all valid concerns that have yet to be adequately addressed.

I urge the Council to require a substantial reduction in the building's height and massing to ensureany development is more appropriately scaled to its surroundings. Preserving the character andamenity of Victoria Park and its environs must be a priority in any planning decision.

I object

i object to the plans to build an excessively tall tower block on the Whitehouse st tradingestate. 19 stories is absolutely ridiculous and cannot be necessary. It will block the views from thepark (a precious things for thousands of residents in the area).

The plans also show a completely characterless enormous building which won't add any value tothe area's identity or appearance. The development is so ugly it is will be an eyesore in a fewyears.

The area is already incredibly busy with people parking on our street (Quantock road) becausethey live in similar no car developments.

Bedminster deserves more effort to be put into the design of this building and thought about theimpact.

This proposal is completely unacceptable and continues the trend of filling this area withdetrimental development that does not meet the needs for sustainable, affordable housing andactively harms the existing community. There is no justifiable need for this development, it is justgreed. The impact will be significant overcrowding of public space, already heavily congestedroads and public transport, completely overcrowded public services and clear, irreversible damageto much loved green space and character of the area.

I object to building anything over 3 or 4 storeys next to victoria park. This park providescritical open space for thousands of residents in the area. Building a tower block that overlooks thepark will take away the value of the park.

Please don't build this and block the views of the city from the park.

I attended the drop in session to meet with the developers team and lead architect atcity farm and have reviewed the documentation on line. From that I have the followingconcerns : -

The currently closed section of Prince's St by the S&B Automotive academy is to be opened up.This closed road forms part of their site and allows safe access between buildings. The leadarchitect was not even aware of this when it was brought to his attention ! Opening the road willhave a detrimental impact on a European wide well respected training facility which is uniquewithin the South West I am informed.

This is a high density development with no allowance for additional GP's or dentists, as well theimpact on services and street parking even though it is a "no car development", they occupiers willhave some cars which will need to be parked.

Some of retail space should be used for a GP surgery / NHS dentist partially funded by thedeveloper.

The flats are all lease hold which will allow high maintenance cost ever increasing with outimpunityby the Free holder. The government has stated that all new residential lease holdproperties should be stopped and replaced with each individual property owning a share of thefree hold.

The development is unbalanced and yet again prioritises student accommodation & commercialretail over residents. Bristol needs new accommodation for the long term population not a transientstudent population who don't pay council tax but still use all the cities resources and have highimpact on Bristol. Living next to student accommodation if your not a student is not conducive tonormal working life.

There appears no allowance for residents disabled persons with mobility impairments.

The developer should pay for significant improvements to Victoria Park due to the impact of theincrease development near the park and its residents will have on the park. The current unusedproperty within the park which offers so much potential springs to mind.

The development team I felt really on gave lip service to any comments and failed to answer directquestions when asked. The local community persons who attended came with open minds andsupplied important details which seemed to be dismissed.

The traffic around that area has already been severely interfered with due to alreadybuilding. The skyline from the park does not need blocking with another large multistory producedby greedy student accommodation companies

This will create excessive light pollution in an urban dark sky area, affect the skylinefrom the beloved and essential park, increase traffic in an already busy area, and put a strain onparking. This prioritises corporate interests uet again, there are already multiple brand new highrise block in the area for students.

A great deal of time and effort has gone into this application.Sadly it cannot obscure the underlying facts of the proposal - that it is another massive soullessdevelopment for South Bristol that will scar the landscape and views for miles around.Even the lower buildings obscure important views from the park and the tallest ones rise over anddominate the park and local escarpments.Even the developer's own illustrations demonstrate that very soon, the only views available toanyone in South Bristol will soon be that of high rise buildings unless you happen to live on the19th floor.Views from the 'important viewing point' in Victoria Park would be almost entirely obscured by thishigh rise development right in front of it.This over-development is just a part of a pattern turning our city into a copy of London,Manchester and Birmingham which should be resisted to keep Bristol unique.A large number of the flats are single aspect and will have dingy aspects of the flats closeopposite. These will presumably be reserved for the affordable housing - if there is any.The stated aim of 20% affordable may be promised, but will soon be eroded to 10% or 0% sometime after planning permission is granted following submission of calculations to the council as hashappened elsewhere.The proliferation of student housing may be a developer's dream but is not beneficial to localcommunities and is unnecessary.This proposal should be refused.

New student flats proposal on Whitehouse lane are too big and dystopian.

Ridiculous to build even more scam student flats so far from the university with no closetransport links. A tower block will be completely out of place in this area, ruin the skyline from thepark, and the block isn't even set up to provide affordable housing to families and locals.

The proposal to build a 19 storey building in an area already filling with high rise andstudent accommodation is absurd. The consequences of existing and incomplete projects had notyet been absorbed, the plans are far too high. Increased density does not require 19 storeys.Additionally, the student demographic hump will end in the next few years, meaning that thisexpensive private accommodation might be wasteful.

A terrible idea. Stop accepting high rise student accommodation.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Planning Objection: Application 25/11778/F - Galliard Apsley Partnership Development

I am writing to express serious concerns regarding planning application 25/11778/F, specifically

the proposed 19-storey building and associated development. After reviewing the plans, I believe

this proposal contravenes several key planning guidelines and would negatively impact the

surrounding area in multiple ways. I am the

which is the Trust that operates the local primary school (St Mary Redcliffe CE Primary). This

school will sit almost directly beneath the student accommodation block and is marked on the

location map on the planning portal.

Inappropriate Building Height and Density

The proposed development includes Block D at 19 storeys and portions of Block C reaching 14

storeys, which significantly exceeds the height parameters established in the Whitehouse Street

Regeneration Framework (WSRF). According to the WSRF, this area is designated for "contextual

tall buildings" defined as approximately 10 storeys (30m). The current proposal nearly doubles this

guideline.

The excessive height would create an overpowering presence that is completely out of character

with the surrounding neighbourhood. Community feedback during consultations specifically

highlighted building height as the "biggest issue," with descriptions of the development creating a

'canyon' effect. The local community group TRESA has suggested a maximum height of 10

storeys would be more appropriate.

Additionally, the proposed density of approximately 530 dwellings per hectare far exceeds the 120

dwellings per hectare suggested as optimal in the Urban Living SPD and WSRF. While the WSRF

acknowledges that city centre densities starting at 200 dwellings per hectare might be appropriate

for this location, the current proposal still substantially exceeds even this higher threshold.

The framework notes that buildings higher than 8 storeys should have to be 'contextual and

demonstrate high quality design'. This is manifestly not the case.

Buildings of the scale proposed will dwarf both the primary school and the hill that it sits on. They

are egregiously out of scale.

Flawed Transport and Parking Strategy

The application proposes a "car-free" development with only disabled parking spaces provided.

While this aligns with broader sustainability goals, it fails to address practical realities. The site is

not as "highly accessible" as claimed - Temple Meads station is over 1km away, and the nearest

bus stops are 600-800m from the site.

Without adequate mitigation measures, this approach will likely displace parking needs to

surrounding residential streets, exacerbating existing parking problems. As noted in community

consultation, a car-free development of this scale is considered "unrealistic" without

comprehensive supporting infrastructure.

For this strategy to be viable, the development must include:

- Dedicated, accessible spaces for car clubs

- Clear arrangements for deliveries

- Enhanced cycle storage facilities beyond minimum standards

- Designated zones for e-scooters and parcel services

- Financial support for a residents' parking scheme in surrounding areas

Parking and congestion in this area already make operating the St Mary Redcliffe CE primary

School very difficult. The above issues will significantly exacerbate those problems.

Additional Concerns

Several other aspects of the proposal warrant objection:

Impact on Existing Businesses

The development fails to adequately address the "no net loss of jobs" objective established in the

WSRF. While the application mentions generating 20 net additional on-site jobs in commercial

spaces, it doesn't provide sufficient guarantees regarding the displacement of existing industrial

businesses and blue-collar employment.

Student Accommodation Concentration

The inclusion of Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) has raised significant community

concerns about the concentration of transient populations and their impact on establishing

cohesive communities. Despite the applicant's assertions that there is no current concentration of

students in the immediate area, local residents have expressed preference for a mix of market and

affordable homes instead.

Affordable Housing Placement

Placing all affordable units in a separate block (Block A) contradicts best practices for social

integration and risks creating unnecessary segregation. While the application mentions creating a

"heterogeneous community," the physical separation of affordable housing units undermines this

objective.

Visual Impact

The proposed development would significantly alter the local skyline and impact numerous views

throughout the area. This is especially concerning given the proximity to the Bedminster

conservation area, whose special character could be compromised by such an imposing

development.

Conclusion

While redevelopment of this site has merit, the current proposal represents a significant and

inappropriate departure from the established planning framework for this area. The excessive

height, unrealistic transport strategy, and numerous other issues make this application

fundamentally incompatible with both local planning guidance and community needs.

I strongly urge Bristol City Council to reject this application in its current form or require substantial

modifications to align it with the WSRF guidelines, particularly regarding building height and

transport provisions.

It impacts on our green spaceIt will cause overcrowding and congestionWhy are we prioritising students we have already done thatYou just aren't listening to us

I object the proposal for a 19 storey tower block creating an eyesore, blocking light &overcrowding an already very busy area. The prioritisation of mass student accommodation at thedetriment of local people on such a scale right alongside one of our most prominent city parks isappalling.

This is a very tall development and is detrimental to the skyline and views.If it has to be so big can you explain why you would do something that is so ugly.Why aren't these interesting designs that utilise plants? Balcony's that have trees planted in them.They have that in Europe, please BCC have some design consciousness and don't allow this uglydesign

These buildings look like they would be ridiculously big. They would be completelyincongruous with the surrounding area and would be visible as an eyesore from all across the city.

They would ruin the beautiful Bristol views for so so many people and would completely tower overthe surrounding schools.Awful. Please don't let this happen!!!

I strongly object to the proposed 19-storey student accommodation block next toVictoria Park. This development poses a serious threat to our precious green space by introducingexcessive light pollution and disrupting the park's natural skyline. It will worsen local overcrowding,increase traffic and strain already stretched infrastructure. The proposal prioritizes developer andcorporate interests over the needs of local residents, failing to deliver much-needed affordablefamily homes. It also disregards previous community consultations, making a mockery of thedemocratic planning process.

Please listen to the voices of the community and reject this damaging and unbalanceddevelopment.

Bristol needs more accommodation, I get it. But not this, next to and visible from awonderfully preserved and precious green space. It's way too high, go build further out, where theland is cheaper.I see the challenge - the land is so expensive the developer needs more units to increase themargin and revenue, but at the expense of everyone else's quality of life.This will probably have to go through, but it needs to be much smaller, or somewhere else.

Prioritising corporate interests over community needsExcessively largeRuins viewNo parking zone pushes cars on to neighbouring streets

Development would have a negative impact on the area - a tall tower block is not inkeeping with the existing look of the neighbourhood and would be an eyesore in particularimpacting the light and views which contribute to Victoria Park being a cherished green space.Parking is already a significant issue in the area and cannot support large numbers of newresidents / visitors (student flats may have multiple cars per flat). Local amenities are generally notsufficient to support such a large influx of new residents. Affordable family homes should beprioritised.

Development would have a negative impact on the area - a tall tower block is not inkeeping with the existing look of the neighbourhood and would be an eyesore in particularimpacting the light and views which contribute to Victoria Park being a cherished green space.Parking is already a significant issue in the area and cannot support large numbers of newresidents / visitors (student flats may have multiple cars per flat). Local amenities are generally notsufficient to support such a large influx of new residents. Affordable family homes should beprioritised.

Out of keepingRuins natural landscape and view of iconic green spaceBlocks viewDensity far too great -Will dominate the park and block views.NotIn keeping with other developments in the area- already major developments in the area.

I do not support the development of this building. We should maintain our green spacesand Victoria Park SHOULD be preserved.

Please do not destroy such a beautiful, green and lovely neighbourhood

We strongly object to this development as a home owner in windmill hill. There hasalready been significant development in the area without appropriate increase in local amenitiesfor the local community. Victoria park is a dark sky area green space and the massive new studentaccommodation will bring increased light pollution and traffic to the area. It is not a developmentthat benefits the local community in any way, especially in the context that the community hasrecently already absorbed a huge increase in population from the other student accommodationbeing built without support. For this development to be sustainable would require a big investmentfrom the council to meet the needs of the local population:

I love Victoria park and this part of bristol. I don't agree with the plans as it will ruin thearea more than has been done in past few years. The case manager lives in Redland and I do notthink she will be objective. It is always poor areas that have flat built. Build more flats in BS6, BS7and BS8. Loads of space. Another proposal is to remove green space by dalby ave for flats - nomention of building on Redland green. Bad idea. Bad people. Do not trust

19 storeys is hugely excessive - the impact on green space will be significant. It will beblocking a community space - the hill in victoria park that looks over the city centre - which will bea huge detriment to everyone living locally.

What's more, there is already huge strain on local resources with all the new developments, whichare not even fully completed yet. Parking in particular.

Appreciate the reinvigoration of whitehouse lane is important, but 19 storeys of studentaccomodation will have real negative impact for local residents.

Impact on precious green spaceOvercrowding & CongestionUnbalanced DevelopmentIgnoring community voices

It seems that South Bristol and specifically the Windmill Hill area is being targeted . Thisis a residential area that has victorian drainage and sewerage the recent sewer collapse onWhitehouse street should be ringing alarm bells with someone. Add in the stream that is beingtinkered with I suspect we will be getting to work via canoe. This area attracts families with a largepart of the appeal being victoria park. We have been subjected to noise and air pollution for over 2years due to the massive student accommodation push. We tax payers are supporting a massiveamount of people who are using infrastructure and services but not paying towards its upkeep. Westrongly object to yet more tower blocks.

This is a monster of a project by a beautiful green space. It will increase population intoan area that is already getting terribly overpopulated by recent construction. Nurseries can't copealready, GP waiting lists are weeks long we simply can't cope with this amount of new people.We have been repeating for years that these tower blocks are not the answer and yet here wehave to object one more. Meanwhile people are getting the tiniest transformations to their houserejected because it impacts the landscape whilst allowing these monster to exist in the same area

Upsets me to see yet another money-making ill considered, tower block for studentaccomodation in my area, adding nothing to the lives of the people of this neighbourhood.

Making Bristol a city that is ruled by students only. Prioritising the needs of the actualcommunity that pay council tax should be more important. PLEASE NO

This would impact negatively upon the local green space, causing excessive lightpollution in an urban dark sky area as well as impacting the skyline from across the park. Thiswould cause increased traffic, strain on parking (designated as a 'no car' development) and localresources in an already stressed neighbourhood. This development is prioritizing students andcorporate interests over community needs of affordable family homes and fail to respect extensiveconsultation feedback.

It's impacts our green space, light pollution, increases traffic and congestion andprioritises business needs over community needs - what about affordable family homes?

Victoria Park is a valued dark sky green space, and the proposed accommodationwould increase light pollution and put further strain on local services. It prioritises corporateinterests over the real needs of the local community

I would be really disappointed if this went ahead. It's not an appropriate area for a 19storey tower. Please find another site and don't ruin our local community. Thanks

I strongly object to this application

I am totally against the building of a 19 or simelar block of student flats in theWhitehouse st trading estate . We have a precious resource in the Victoria park and do not want tosee an enormous loo I g building so close to this natural place of rest . Local residents have nowhad enough of these student flats built solely for profit . Enough is enough .

This city does not need any more student accomodation. The university has run fine forhundreds of years without more students so they need to stop admitting more people and stopcreating a housing crisis for students. We need more housing for people to live in Bristol but not inthe centre! Its all becoming over populated.

Against

Visual impact on the local green space and skyline. Negative impact on dark skies areaaround Victoria Park. Local infrastructure especially access road are already overly congested,this development would add even more pressure to system never designed for this volume of use.We need to keep Green spaces 'Green' in residential areas of Bristol. This will have such anegative impact on Victoria Park in particular.

Outraged at the idea to be honest, there's plenty of new student buildings in and aroundthe area already. What about the community, the children growing up in what feels like a concretejungle, the wildlife that will suffer, the green space that's already rapidly depleting with constantconstruction. Build somewhere else, not on our green spaces!

This tower block is completely unnecessary when there are plenty of empty offices thatcould be converted in the city and the ongoing issue with expensive housing in the city as a whole.

We strongly object to this unnecessarily high and huge building being built right byVictoria Park, blocking the iconic view of Bristol from thousands of park visitors each year andlooming over the green space. This is not even giving homes to families who need them - this ismore profiteering by building more and more student homes - residents who will not contribute tocouncil tax and have no investment in the community. This will change the feel of Victoria Parkand Windmill Hill forever - a change that us as local residents will have to live with for years tocome, while students come and go, and developers line their pockets. Strongly object.

Its just much too big, it will change the character and spacious feeling of park, ruiningthe views of the city and impacting mental health with its ovwrwhelming presence. Too many morepeople, too many more cars, too much noise and light from the building

Student accommodation is not what people need (in fact people who work inuniversities say data points to student numbers reducing).The area needs more affordable family accommodation, at least to rent. Families are being pricedout of the rental market. And big blocks of student accommodation put pressure on alreadystretched local amenities. This is profit over common sense.

Far too high.

This development would ruin iconic views over Bristol to Clifton and the Suspension Bridge fromVictoria Park, enjoyed by thousands or residents of Totterdown, Knowle and Bedminster, deprivedwards of Bristol, as well as tourists and Bristolians from further afield. The only park with viewseasily accessible from the city centre and Temple Meads.

Iconic, as in world famous.

Outrageous - would this be even considered in Clifton or Bath?

Where they are planning to put the student accommodation is not even that close to thecentre of Bristol so it would he a complete waste of space. The current accommodation hasblocked the gorgeous view of Bristol from many people already. putting one right it the middle of afabulous viewpoint for many others who want to go to victoria park and enjoy the scenery, they willbe met with a huge chunk of cement to lighten the mood! Please do not put the flats there, I'msure the students wouldn't mind moving a little bit closer to where they learn xx.

I am not opposed to development on this site but not a 19 storey tower block. This willruin the connection and view we have from south Bristol into the city and vice versa. The block willalso tower over the school my children attend and spoil the view which many many south Bristolresidents sit and enjoy from victoria park. This is a real community collective experience and isimportant for residents around the park. With so many students blocks being built in Bedminsterand temple meads I don't understand why so many more are needed. Overall I think this will spoilthe unique character and connection we have in south Bristol with the rest of the city, making usfeel cut off. I am also co concerned around the impact on the large block over st Mary Redcliffeprimary school. It is terrible practice to see the developers have shaded the large towers in alighter colour in the image, making it seem less overbearing. This feels deceptive.

I would like the council to follow their own guidance and refuse this planning applicationon the grounds that it is much too high - offensively, egregiously so. If built, the 10 and 19 storeyblocks will hem in the Windmill Hill community even more than it already is. Have any of thecommittee been down Windmill Hill (the road) lately? The recently-built block over Malago Roadcompletely fills and blocks your view out of the neighbourhood. Please consider the huge value ofthe city and countryside view from the park for locals in this already densely populated inner cityarea. I know that developers hold most of the power in our planning system and they are justtrying to make as much profit as possible by building ugly high rises. The council has a chancehere to send the message that these kinds of buildings will not be considered because we valueour existing and future community and public realm more than developers' profits.

Whilst I don't live in this area, Bedminster is an area that I visit frequently. I amconcerned by the high amount of student accommodation, compared to the lower amount ofresidential property, being built in the area, causing an unbalanced development for the area,especially whilst there are so many families on the housing waiting list. Also worrying is the factthat this plan completely ignores the community voices and fails to respect extensive consultationfeedback.

These are TOO high and dense. Consideration MUST be taken as to how thesebuildings sit within the context of this area. The city is famous for its coloured houses which can beseen from all over. These concrete blocks have started to obliterate Bristol's unique skyline.

I have already sent a detailed objection to Bristol city council and never received aresponse.

I totally object to a 19 storey tower block, at the purposed Whitehouse Street TradingEstate.

Flats are too tall. Will blight skyline.

I understand the need to build on brownfield sites to address housing needs and do notoppose development that is sensitive to local needs, but I object to what is proposed on thefollowing grounds.

1. The density of the development. There is a need for mixed housing for families, the elderly andyoung people, but do we really need more student accommodation in this area? There are alreadynew student blocks recently opened very nearby in Bedminster and St Phillip's. I cannot believemore is required just for the new Bristol Uni campus, which is the reason being given. It is mostlyfirst years and overseas students who stay in halls and certainly the numbers of overseas studentshas dropped. If more are required, I believe it would have a disproportionate impact on the localcommunity to concentrate such large numbers in one area. It seems to be aimed at maximisingprofit over local impact and need. Do we really need some many people moving into the area?Especially those who are less likely to stay and put down roots and contribute to the localcommunity in the long term, rentals and students.

2. The tallest building is too high. It is overbearing. It overshadows St Mary Redcliffe PrimarySchool which is already quite a dark Victorian building. I am concerned about the privacy of thechildren being overlooked and it blocks out light. It also spoils the lovely view from the North sideof the park to the side of the school where people gather in the evening to enjoy the sunset. Nowthey will look onto a tower block which is higher than the hill itself.

3. The impact of extra light on the park, which is an Urban Dark Sky Site, which is important for

local wildlife. A high block will shine light onto the park at night.

4. The impact of the development on the park in terms of additional people will be considerable.The impact of an influx of additional residents from the new blocks recently opened is alreadybeing felt and more will make matters worse. There is increased use and rubbish. There arealready insufficient toilets and inadequate rubbish collection. The development is relying on thepark, but not enhancing it in any way.

5. The fact there are no car parking facilities planned. People will have cars and so where are theygoing to park them? Parking is already a problem in the local area. There needs to be onsiteprovision for parking.

Here is a formal objection you can use or adapt for a planning application:

---

Objection to Planning Application for 19-Storey Student Flat Block Adjacent to Victoria Park

I strongly object to the proposed development of a 19-storey student accommodation block next toVictoria Park on the following grounds:

1. Impact on Precious Green Space: The proximity of this high-rise block to one of our fewremaining green spaces is deeply concerning. [Park Name] serves as a vital community asset,providing space for recreation, wellbeing, and biodiversity. The shadowing, noise, and increasedfootfall from such an overbearing structure will diminish the park's tranquillity and ecological value.

2. Overcrowding and Congestion: This development will significantly increase the local populationdensity without appropriate infrastructure in place. Local roads, public transport, and amenities arealready under strain, and this influx risks further congestion, reduced air quality, and increasedpressure on public services.

3. Unbalanced Development: This plan prioritises transient student accommodation over theneeds of long-term residents, exacerbating the imbalance in our community. There is a pressingneed for genuinely affordable housing for families, key workers, and the elderly - not more studentblocks that serve commercial interests over community wellbeing.

4. Ignored Community Concerns: Numerous residents and community groups have voicedobjections to this proposal, yet these views appear to have been sidelined in the planning process.A development of this scale and significance should not proceed without meaningful consultationand genuine engagement with the people it will affect most.

In conclusion, this proposal represents an unsustainable and unjustifiable development thatthreatens our green space, burdens our infrastructure, and undermines community cohesion. Iurge the planning committee to reject this application.

While I appreciate the depth of our housing crisis this is both unattractive andoffensively tall and imposing. If it goes ahead it'll damage the character of Victoria Park and theviews in BS3 and far beyond. Please consider knocking about 40% off the top!

I'm majorly concerned about the student accommodation block which is part of the plan.Not only is it a big ugly addition to a beautiful area but yet more student accommodation in a cityalready full of it means more transitory, unsettled communities. I am totally encouraging of newdevelopment, more affordable housing for people, but built in sympathy and harmony with theenvironment. Prioritising students and business interests over community and affordable homes isan outrage and is not in attunement with what this area wants and needs.

This would cause:

. Excessive light pollution and impact park skyline

.Overcrowding and congestion in an already stressed neighbourhood.

.Unbalanced development, prioritising students and corporate interest over community needs.

.Ignoring local voices.

I disagree with the 19 storey tower block since my children regularly go to the park andthis will impact them in more ways than one so I disagree and think Victoria park should be leftalone

This development is unnecessary in its scale and will unduly burden local resources. Itstrikes of greed with such scale without taking into the environmental and social impact it will have.

I strongly object to the proposal to build and obstruct the iconic view from Victoria Parkover Bristol. This is an area and view that should be protected, along with the fact that student flatsdo not provide affordable accommodation to local residents but instead cause fluctuations inbusiness trade, traffic etc with students in and out over the academic year. Given the distancefrom Bristol Uni to south Bristol this cannot be the best option for student accommodation both forthe city and residents of Victoria park who want to protect our beautiful area.

.

I have chose to object.

It will ruin the skyline of my local green spaces. It prioritises students over localresidents. I do not want it to cause unnecessary congestion in my area.

I object to this development plan due to its impact on the much needed and charishedVictoria Park. The park serves a staple to the local residents of South Bristol and a toweringstructure completely destroys the sense of openness and well-being that the park provides tothose that enjoy it so much.

Student blocks have a time and a place but not near a critical greenspace that brings the wholecommunity together in health and relaxation. There would be considerable disruption to thattranquility and community benefit. Bristol prides itself on our progressive approach and life style.We reject the city scapes of larger cities for one where communities and people flourish withnature and this must be protected. We are THE green city and ensure those spaces feel open andpure is essential for the prosperity of the locale environment.

Too many additional strains on local resources.. impact on victoria park. Overcrowdingand priority of students flat profits over sensible planning.

Bedminster is currently developing at a rate that is not sustainable for theneighbourhood. The balance between public and private spaces isn't there, and in addition thetransportation methods and roads are not prepared for this high increase on inhabitants in thearea neither are any existent plans to make changes on that front.As a Chartered Civil Engineer I am personally concerned on the volume of the proposed buildingand the low thoughts provided by the city council to how the neighbourhood can adjust and find anew balance between public/private spaces and infrastructure needed to host all the studentspredicted to join the neighbourhood.

This area of Bedminster does not need further students and tall buildings. Bristol citycouncil only seems to be thinking short term building student accommodation for the moneywithout thinking about the needs of the people that lives in the area. Invest in transportation, publicamenities, GPs... Something that the community can benefit not only student flats, which latelyseems to be the only strategy from Bristol. When there are these type of development Bristol citycouncil completely disregards the opinion of the neighbours and that should stop.

The proposed plans completely block the panoramic views of Bristol from Victoria Park,which are iconic of the area and constitute one of the most cherished spots in the park. Victoriapark is a designated dark zone for wildlife, is used by Bristol residents for stargazing and is one ofthe biggest green spaces in the city. This development completely overbears the park and makesthe park feel very constrained. I question how much the light pollution has been considered too.The height of the buildings is the main objection - it's simply too high for the area and stands outlike a sore thumb. There are already so many student flats around, it seems like a horrendousmoney grab. Putting such an overbearing structure in what is a natural Bristol haven is very illthought out.

I object to this proposal for a number of reasons. Whilst I don't live in the immediatevicinity of Victoria Park, I visit the park often and the possibility of a 19 storey building, alongside a13 storey building appearing on the skyline seems completely at odds with the surroundings.Victoria Park is a green space treasured by so many people and to change the outlook for visitorsand residents is shortsighted and will set a dangerous precedent that the city will not come backfrom. PLEASE can BCC have a longer-term plan for development across the city, rather than justletting individual development companies try and cram as many houses and flats into one smallspace. I cannot believe that elected members would look at the 4 proposed elevation drawingsand think that it's a sound solution and the right thing for this city and for the area. Please listen tothe residents and to the people who elected you.

Having looked at a multitude of documents on the planning portal, I have only come across onemention of parking and it doesn't actually specify how many parking spaces there will be. (Giventhere are over 190 documents, it makes it hard for anyone to work out what they should be lookingat to get key information, although maybe that's the point??) As far as I can tell there is going to bea minimum of 840 dwellings (400 of which are in the block of flats housing students) - where arepeople going to park? If yes, are there any electric car charging ports? In order to facilitate peoplenot having a car, is there secure bike storage? Please point me in the direction of the plan whichoutlines this.

I also object on the grounds that BCC do not appear to be taking the overall look and feel of thecity into account. In the Townscape and Visual Assessment document prepared by Liz Lake

Associates in March 2025, on page 3, it talks about the National Planning Policy Framework:'Paragraph 8 sets out the three strands of sustainable development, comprising the economic,social and environmental objectives. The environmental objective includes, "to protect andenhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land,...." Ifthis development goes ahead with the buildings the same height as the plans show, you are NOTprotecting or enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. You would be doing theopposite. It would change the skyline and the feel of the area, in a negative way, forever. Youcould argue, as I'm sure some of you will, that building on the site is making effective use of theland as stated in the NPPF but at what cost?

In 3.1.5 of the same document, in bullet point 3, the NPPF is quoted as saying, 'In particular, theyshould allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailingheight and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, is well-designed(including complying with any local design policies and standards) and can maintain safe accessand egress for occupiers". This development is not, in any way, consistent with the prevailingheight and form of neighbouring properties. It will tower above anything else around it and can beseen from multiple vantage points across Bristol. The plans also don't seem to take into account(or omit) the fact that in certain points of Victoria Park, you are much higher up or much lowerdown so the buildings will have a far greater impact on what people see. I cannot imagine how thePrimary School feel about this.

If you want to create a thriving neighbourhood in this part of the city, do we really need another setof student accommodation? Bedminster Green has hundreds of new student apartments; there ismore student accommodation already being build by the new Temple Quarter Enterprise Campusthat will house 4,600 students, with more to come. Serena Ralston is quoted in the article I'velinked to below as saying the development surrounding the new University building at TQEC is 'abit of a PBSA fest and not quite the design we are looking for.' Temple Quarter 'seems a bit of apurpose-built student accommodation-fest' The article also mentions more development in StPhilips Marsh. More development and no doubt more student accommodation. The creep ishappening and you have the power to stop it. It feels like this is a moment to take a pause andreally consider whether creating high rise after high rise right next to one of the last remainingresidential green spaces in Bristol is the RIGHT thing to do.

20 storeys high? Interesting that Bedminster is in a state of disrepair but the onlyfacilities put in are student accommodation. Maybe if the developers made a contribution to thecommunity itself these things might be taken a bit better.

While I in general support the need to develop this area the proposed scope of theproject seems excessive in light of how much other residential building has already gone on andthe impact of this on the local community. In particular the largest of the buildings at 20 stories willhave a negative effect on those in the local community. My main objections are

1. This amount of additional high rise housing without proper thought to implications on traffic andinfrastructure. What is the planned parking, the new student blocks have already had a significantimplication on local resident parking and this will exacerbate this. The roads around South Bristolhave seen increased congestion since the clean air zone was put in place. This will only furtheradd to that.

2. A proportion of this is planned as designated student housing but there is a drop in the numberof students wanting private accommodation. The only thing worse that having these buildings isyou building them and them being vacant. Current laws on student rooms vs normal rooms meanthese can not simply be re-purposed and remarketed if you don't get the student uptake. I thinkthese numbers need to be re thought. (https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/11/20/student-accommodation-after-2024-and-the-need-for-strategic-realignment/#:~:text=Although%20some%20of%20the%20data,24.2%25%20in%202022%2D2023))

3. Victoria park is a designated urban dark sky site - The taller of these building will increase lightpollution and detract from the views from the park. This may not feel significant to developers but

for local residents we do not want to end up with the park caged in by high rise buildings.

In summary, while I dont oppose to regeneration of the area this feels like an excessive number ofadditional flats and I think the height of these buildings and capacity for parking needs to bereconsidered.

There is already too much traffic. The main roads are continuously blocked. It is notpossible to widen any of the roads to allow more traffic to pass. It is increasing Road safety issues.It will be dangerous for our children to walk home from school.There are no planned provisions for healthcare, doctor surgeries, schools etc. All of the localresources are oversubscribed. it is incredibly difficult to get a doctors appointment as it is.This is a main route for the local school. The high-rise development would cause significantoverlooking, People passing through the area, Increased noise, Increase people using the privateroad to school, Increased parking issues.The buildings proposed are too big and too high. The proposal is outrageous and does notconsider that the building is not in keeping with the local vernacular. its height causes overlookingand overshadowing. It is oppressive.it does not help with the issue of housing. it offers a development for more students! we haveample student housing which has just been built near the windmill city farm which also opposeshuge overlooking and is an eyesore.How many more developments do we have to have this in our area?

I live approximately 100 metres to the north of the proposed development on YorkRoad. I calculate the top of Block D will subtend an angle greater than 30 degrees from the centreof my living room window, breaching established daylight/sunlight standards. This is also the casefor many other residential properties on our street.

I am deeply concerned that properties to the north - those most likely to be severely affected byloss of daylight - have been deliberately excluded from the applicant's light study. This omissionundermines the credibility of the assessment and fails to accurately represent the true impact onneighbouring residents. As such, the planning application should be refused on the grounds that itis supported by an inadequate and misleading daylight and sunlight study.

In addition, the scale and massing of the development are wholly inappropriate for this site. BlockD and Block C are both excessively tall and out of context with the established character of thesurrounding area. The proposals represent overdevelopment of the site, resulting in unacceptableharm to residential amenity through loss of daylight, visual dominance, and an overbearing senseof enclosure to exisiting and future residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the planning authority to refuse this application, or atminimum require significant reductions in height and massing to ensure that it complies with localplanning policies and protects neighbouring amenity.

It's just so big! Both the height and density of the building is just too much for the area.The school will be over looked. I understand the need for more housing, but this is just too much.Unfair on the entire Windmill Hill community.

This proposed high-rise building is completely out of character with the surroundingarea. It would tower over the existing neighbourhood and have a negative visual impact on bothnearby homes and public spaces. The sheer scale of the development feels overwhelming andinappropriate for this part of the city.

These low quality buildings would be the first thing that visitors arriving at Bristol Temple Meadswould see rather than the current Totterdown Escarpment of rainbow coloured Victorian terracesemblematic of what Bristol means to the significant and growing number of visitors to our beautifulcity.

One of the biggest concerns is its closeness to the Bedminster Conservation Area. This is a part ofBristol known for its historical value and architectural interest. Building something so large andmodern next to it would damage the area's special character and go against the purpose of havinga conservation area in the first place.

Just as worrying is the effect it would have on the listed houses on York Road. These are Grade IIlisted properties, which means they are officially recognised for their historical importance. Thisnew building would spoil their setting and overshadow their heritage value. Once lost, thesehistoric surroundings can't be brought back.

There's also a real risk of putting too much into a space that simply can't handle it. The proposaltries to squeeze in a lot without offering the infrastructure to support it. There's no proper parking

provision, which would add pressure to already packed streets. This is a clear sign the plan is toomuch for the site and the area.

Another issue is how the building would impact Victoria Park. It's a much-loved green space thatmany people use for exercise, relaxation, and family time. A development of this height wouldblock out natural light and reduce the quality of the park for everyone who uses it. That's a big lossfor the community.

Finally, the design itself is out of touch with the local environment. It's harsh, boxy, and gives off asense of being crammed in. It doesn't reflect the style or scale of the buildings around it, and itwould change the character of the neighbourhood for the worse.

For all of these reasons - the harm to historic buildings, the pressure on local infrastructure, theimpact on green space, and the inappropriate design - I believe this development should not goahead.

Total object

I strongly object to yet another high rise building in a community of residentialproperties. I live on windmill hill... which is very much a community. The recent high rise studentbuildings are already having a bad effect on the traffic and neighbourhood being now only able toexit from one side of the hill. The views from the park will be obstructed. The doctors and servicesare already under stress in the area. It is a residential community, a heart of the personality ofBristol not New York.

I strongly oppose the new round of high rise student accommodation proposed. It willobstruct the views from the park. It is damaging the community feel of windmill hill and bedminster.It is a strain on the services and doctors. Traffic is becoming really difficult already and parking isnot proposed so will be more difficult again.

Surely there has to be a point when Bristol City Council takes responsibility for therebuilding of swathes of the city and adopts a vision for the future city rather than leave it up todevelopers.

This is yet another random, high density, visually terrible development that is not part of a holisticdevelopment plan.

Where are the health, education and leisure facilities that should accompany this and the nearbyMead Street monstrosity?

I am firmly opposed to this proposed twenty-storey development. The strain it wouldplace on local traffic, parking availability, and public services is reason enough to reconsider. Butbeyond the practical concerns, the impact on the surrounding environment is deeply troubling.This site sits directly in front of what many consider the finest view from Victoria Park-a spot wherelocals gather in the evening to take in the sunset and connect with their community. Thatexperience, and the character of the area, would be irreparably damaged by such a towering andout-of-place structure. This location is simply not suitable for a development of this scale.

The new development will block cherished sightlines, undermining the unique visualcharacter of the area. Similar concerns have been raised about new towers in Bristol, with criticsdescribing such projects as "dominating and depressing" and warning that they "blight Bristol'slandscape" by introducing inappropriate height and bulk that is alien to the city's beloved identity.

Unsightly and Out of Character: The design and scale of the proposed building are unsympatheticto the existing environment. As seen in other contested developments, there is widespreadobjection to architecture that does not respect local heritage or the historic and aesthetic value ofthe surroundings.

Overcrowding and Pressure on Infrastructure: Introducing a large number of new homes in asensitive area risks overcrowding, increased traffic, and strain on public services. Previousobjections to similar schemes cite concerns about the ability to accommodate large numbers ofnew residents without harming community facilities, open spaces, and the area's character.In summary, this building would irreversibly damage the scenic and cultural value of the area,contribute to overcrowding, and set a precedent for further inappropriate development. I urgedecision-makers to reject this proposal in favor of solutions that respect Bristol's unique landscapeand community wishes.

Having seen the plans/drawings, I object to this development as I feel the building is notfitting with the landscape and would take away from the beauty of Victoria Park. I feel this designalso risks devaluing the properties in this area too which as a homeowner is concerning. It looks tobe far higher than anything else around. If it was design led I could understand as it could add tothe skyline but this looks like little design or thought put into it as is more focused on maximisingprofit. I do not believe residents would thrive in such a poorly designed building

I don't object to housing and community amenities, on that space, but I do object to theheight of the buildings. Spoiling the view might not seem like the biggest issue in the world but I dothink it will have an impact. I personally go to that spot and sit and contemplate and admire theview for my own mental wellbeing and I know others that do the same. The buildings will make thepark feel boxed in and claustrophobic. This will affect both residents and visitors to the park as it isa very popular spot. I am conflicted because I do believe that area needs development and wouldwelcome more amenities close by that the development could bring, but I also believe this couldbe done in a way that doesn't require giant towering blocks of concrete looming over our greenspaces.

My young family and I live in a small terraced flat in totterdown. To escape the flat weoften go for dinner in Victoria park and enjoy the sunset and fantastic view.

This boring uninteresting structure completely disrupts surely one of Bristols best views. Being innature and enjoying the city's vista is one of our few pleasures as a family. Please don't take itaway.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Subject: OBJECTION to Planning Application [25/11778/F] - Proposed Redevelopment

at Land South of Princess Street, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 4AG

Dear Development Management Team,

I am writing in my capacity as the and a resident

of the local community to formally object to planning application [25/11778/F]. While the applicant,

Galliard Apsley Partnership, states that the proposal has been informed by the principles of the

Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF) and the Urban Living SPD, and has

undergone extensive pre-application discussions, I find that the proposed development

fundamentally fails to align with these documents and general planning principles in several critical

areas, particularly regarding height and transport strategy.

Despite the range of supporting documents submitted, including the Planning Statement,

Transport Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, and Commercial Strategy, the proposal

exhibits significant inconsistencies with the very guidance documents it references.

My primary points of objection are as follows:

** Excessive Height and Scale: **

-----------------------------------

The proposed building heights, notably Block D at 19 storeys and parts of Block C reaching 14

storeys, are in direct contradiction to the height strategy described for this area within the WSRF,

as referenced in the applicant's own documents. The Heritage Impact Assessment, for example,

notes that the height arrangement "directly reflects the building heights strategy set out within the

Council's Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework". However, the WSRF, as described by the

applicant in the Statement of Community Involvement, designates the eastern part of the site as

having "potential for contextual tall buildings," which it defines as "30m or higher (the equivalent of

around 10 storeys)". A 19-storey building is significantly taller than the WSRF's stated definition of

a contextual tall building for this location and is therefore massively over-sized and out of scale

with the surrounding area and intended character. The community consultation feedback recorded

in the Statement of Community Involvement highlights that building heights, especially the tallest

building, were the "biggest issue raised by respondents", with some describing it as creating a

'canyon'. While the applicant notes a reduction in height for Block D to 18 storeys and adjustments

to Block C since consultation, they acknowledge these changes "will not satisfy those who oppose

the height of the taller buildings". TRESA suggests a tallest building of no more than 10 storeys

would be more acceptable. A maximum height of 10 storeys would be a significantly more

appropriate interpretation of the WSRF guidance for this location, better respecting the context

and avoiding an overbearing impact. Concerns were also raised about the density, which appears

to be around 530 dwellings per hectare, significantly exceeding the suggested optimum density of

120 dph for this part of the city mentioned in the Urban Living SPD and WSRF, although the

WSRF notes that City Centre densities starting at 200 dph may be appropriate for this accessible

location.

** Unrealistic Parking and Transport Strategy: **

--------------------------------------------------

The proposal's intention is to be "car free with the exception of disabled spaces", which is stated to

be in line with the wider vision for the area and BCC policy. The Transport Assessment claims the

site is "highly accessible, with a genuine multi modal choice of transport accessible to future

residents". It notes the site is well connected to public transport, local amenities, and the city

centre by walk and cycle links. However, local public transport connections are not sufficiently

robust to support a development of this scale and density without adequate on-site mitigation.

Temple Meads station is over 1km away, and the bus stops at Bedminster Parade and by Temple

Meads are about 600m-800m away. Simply removing parking risks exacerbating existing parking

problems by displacing resident vehicles onto surrounding residential streets. The community

consultation also raised concerns that a car-free development was "unrealistic" and questioned

how parking issues would be addressed, stating it feels like these problems are being ignored and

left for the council to cover. For this strategy to be practical and align with sustainable transport

goals, the development must include secured and practical provisions such as dedicated and

accessible spaces for car clubs, clear arrangements for deliveries (e.g., supermarket vans),

substantially improved and secure cycle storage/access beyond minimum standards, designated

parking/drop-off zones for e-scooters/parcel services, and guaranteed financial support for a

residents' parking scheme in the surrounding area. The current proposal appears to leave the

resolution of potential parking displacement largely to the Council. While the Transport

Assessment mentions servicing arrangements for delivery vans and refuse trucks and sufficient

cycle storage, the community consultation requested much more detail and better provisions.

Disabled bays are included in the PBSA element, and all commercial units on the ground floor

would be accessible. The site is considered to be in an extremely sustainable location according to

the BrisTAL mapping tool.

** Other objections **

----------------------

Beyond these significant concerns regarding height and transport, there are a litany of other

smaller issues raised by the proposed development that contribute to my objection:

- Construction Impacts (Dust, Noise, Vibration): While the Air Quality Assessment identifies risks

from construction activities and proposes mitigation measures (such as a wheel washing system

and hard surfaced road between the wheel wash facility and the site exit), and the Health Impact

Assessment states that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is expected to

be secured via a planning condition to mitigate these effects, construction can still lead to

temporary nuisances. The Noise Impact Assessment also assesses potential noise and vibration

impacts and notes that noise mitigation options such as appropriate window glazing and

ventilation strategies may be required, particularly for rooms facing roads and railway lines, as

internal noise levels could exceed recommended guidelines. Severity: Low.

- Loss of Existing Businesses and Potential Job Displacement: Concerns were raised during

community consultation about the loss of current businesses on the site, particularly industrial

ones, and whether the Framework adequately addresses the loss of blue-collar jobs. The

applicant states they are including commercial employment spaces and liaising with existing

businesses to help them relocate, working with the council to identify potential options. However,

the application does not explicitly demonstrate how the "no net loss of jobs" objective of the WSRF

is secured in the long term. The construction phase is estimated to generate around 297 net

additional on-site and off-site construction jobs per annum, and the operational phase commercial

floorspace would generate around 20 net additional on-site jobs (accounting for displacement of

existing employment uses on-site). An Employment and Skills Plan is anticipated to be required by

a condition post-consent.

Severity: Medium.

- Concentration and Mix of Student Accommodation:

A significant number of concerns were raised about including student accommodation, with some

feeling the area already hosts a lot of students and preferring a mix of market and affordable

homes over student units. While the applicant contends there is no concentration of students in

the immediate area and the PBSA will be professionally managed, and the Planning Statement

notes the WSRF is silent on PBSA but local policy allows it if criteria are met, community concerns

about the impact of transitory populations on creating dynamic communities remain. An appeal

decision in 2018 stated that no figures in relevant development plan policies indicate what would

constitute a harmful concentration of student accommodation. PBSA units are included in Block D.

Severity: Medium.

- Location of Affordable Housing: A concern was raised that placing all affordable units in a

separate block deviates from best practice and could lead to segregation or the block being

treated negatively. The applicant highlights it is a mixed regeneration scheme with various home

sizes and the Health Impact Assessment notes the mix aims for a heterogeneous community, and

that units will meet accessibility standards. The proposal includes a total of 20% affordable

housing, excluding student rooms. Affordable housing is located in Block A. Severity: Low.

- Practical Implementation of Car-Free Policy (Deliveries, Other Modes): Beyond the high-level

strategy, the community consultation highlighted a need for specific, secured provisions to make a

car-free scheme workable, such as dedicated areas for car clubs, clear arrangements for

supermarket delivery vehicles, and specific parking/drop-off locations for services like e-scooters

and parcel deliveries. The Transport Assessment mentions servicing and cycle storage, but the

detailed, secured provisions requested by the community are not fully evident or guaranteed.

Severity: Medium.

- Impact on Views (General): While the Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers

various views, including key framework views, concerns were raised during community

consultation that the 21-storey tower would negatively impact numerous local views and puncture

the skyline. Bedminster is a conservation area, and the proposal's impact on its special character

is a concern. The relative height of the blocks is intentional and introduces a local wayfinder, with

the tallest building serving as a focal point.

Severity: Medium.

- Daylight and Sunlight Impacts: The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment notes that the BRE guide

used for assessment is intended for lower density suburban situations and should be interpreted

flexibly in urban locations. The assessment found that all habitable rooms within the scheme will

have natural light levels commensurate with other residential schemes in the area and that the

layout is consistent with local policy and national framework guidance on daylight and sunlight,

particularly in an urban context. However, the report does show some instances where BRE

guidelines for neighbouring buildings are not met, such as at 3 Sargeant Street. The BRE guide is

purely advisory and not an instrument of planning policy.

Severity: Low.

The proposed development, particularly its excessive height far exceeding the WSRF's definition

of 'contextual tall buildings', its impractical transport strategy without robust, secured mitigation,

and the numerous other concerns outlined, represents a significant departure from the vision and

specific guidance set out in the WSRF and Urban Living SPD. The density of the proposal appears

far higher than contemplated by the Framework. This design fails to meet the core principles

intended for this regeneration area.

I urge Bristol City Council to refuse this planning application or require significant modifications,

secured by planning conditions or obligations, to bring it into genuine alignment with the adopted

planning framework before considering approval.

Yours faithfully,

The current tenants at the location are still under lease of the land for at least another 5years, and have still yet to be given any formal notice of eviction. The site holds a successfulBristol-based geotechincal company with top of the range scientific equipment and well over £1million of development into the site, it is unjust to force them to move in such short notice.

Furthermore, it is noticed pictures of this company, and other companies using the area have beentactically omitted by the desk study performed in the area.

The companies in the area employ a large volume of people who are from the south Bristol andsurrounding areas, many of which rely on public transport, pushing forwards with this developmentwill not only harm the local economy of the area, but also continue to force the gentrification ofbedminster and ultimately harm the essence of south Bristol.

Given that the area is planned to be re-developed for student accommodation and high-rise flats Ifeel that it would be more beneficial to re-develop other brownfield locations and instead focus onupgrading and improving the area south of princess street to become more aesthetically pleasing,instead of claiming quick cash from student housing companies and residential developers (Whomin turn will not re-invest the money earned from these ventures back into bristol)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as an employee of Structural Soils Ltd, based at 1A Princess Street, Bedminster, BS34AG - a fully operational workplace now caught in the middle of a major redevelopment proposalunder planning reference SUVC6GDNIZE00.

Despite being a long-standing tenant at the centre of this site, neither I nor any of my colleagueshave received any formal communication, consultation, or engagement from the developer, siteowner, or local authority about the future of our workplace. We discovered details about theredevelopment indirectly and unofficially, which has caused serious confusion, anxiety, andgrowing frustration among the workforce.

You're Not Just Redeveloping Land - You're Risking Real Jobs and Real Lives!Structural Soils Ltd holds a valid lease with more than four years remaining.We are a major national and international geotechnical consultancy, and the Princess Streetlaboratory is a vital hub for our operations.From this site, we provide specialist data and testing services for infrastructure projects across theUK and globally, including extensive work on offshore renewables and nuclear energy.We receive test samples from major clients across the globe, many of which rely on the precision,expertise, and turnaround capabilities of our Bristol facility.

Our projects have included:

-Hinkley Point C nuclear power station-HS2--MetroBus and Temple Quarter regeneration-Bristol Airport expansion-Offshore wind and marine infrastructure-Major housing, rail, and utilities schemes across the South West and UKThis is not a minor operation.We are not a short-term occupant or a marginal enterprise - we are one of Bedminster's largesttechnical employers, operating quietly but critically behind the scenes on some of the UK's mosthigh-profile engineering challenges.

Our Community Roots Matter!Over 75% of our Princess Street workforce live in South Bristol, many within walking or cyclingdistance of the lab.This site supports skilled employment, apprenticeships, and long-term careers.In my case - and for others with young families or additional needs - any unexpected relocationwould have serious implications not just for our jobs, but for our home lives too.

Our Presence Is Ignored in the Planning Documents!What is particularly concerning is that Structural Soils Ltd is not mentioned anywhere in thepublished planning documents, despite occupying a large and active part of the site. None of thephotographs used in the plans show our clearly branded, modern fleet of vehicles - an active,visible, and established presence here for many years.Our vehicle fleet - which supports both local and national logistics - is maintained by businessesbased just 500 metres away on Whitehouse Street, further demonstrating our integration into andsupport for the local economy.

Where Is the Plan?What's deeply concerning is the complete absence of any:-Tenant relocation strategy.-Phased withdrawal plan.-Staff engagement or notice process.There is nothing in the publicly available planning documents that addresses how fully operationalbusinesses are supposed to vacate - or if they are even being acknowledged in this process at all.That's not just an administrative oversight.It reflects a total lack of respect for the people and companies already here.

We are proud of the work we do.We contribute to critical energy, infrastructure, and decarbonisation goals - quietly but significantly- from this site.To now face displacement without consultation, clarity, or support is unacceptable.

What Needs to Happen Now:We ask that the Council:-Immediately confirm whether any demolition, redevelopment, or site clearance timelines havebeen approved.-Require the developer to submit a clear and detailed tenant relocation plan or business continuitystrategy.-Engage with tenants currently operating on site - including Structural Soils Ltd - before allowingany further planning progression.-Ensure accountability, so that established businesses with legally binding leases are treated withthe fairness and respect they deserve.

This is about more than bricks and mortar.It's about how Bristol treats its working communities, long-term tenants, and employers whocontribute directly to the region and the country.

Please log this letter as a formal objection and respond accordingly. I would welcome theopportunity to speak further on this matter and strongly urge the Council to intervene beforeirreversible disruption occurs.

There is a similar development that sadly already happened by Totterdown bridge - it'sunsightly, unfinished failed project that is causing damage to the river banks and may even needto be pulled down due to its instability and not fulfilling regulations.Bristol is a one of the core cities known to not have many high rises, but Marvyn Rees started adangerous prescedent and now the developers keep flooding in with inapproprite proposalswithout any consideration for the neighbourhood, wildlife, facilities, pollution. This is anotherexample. As the occupants are expected to be students, there won't even be any council taxcollected to benefit the city. It's a bad idea, please stop proposing inappropriate buildings - highrises are correlated with higher crime also, it's just not ok to keep ignoring the local population.Bristol City Council Planning Team should not even consider this, so the fact it's got to this stageis in itself worrying.

I strongly object to this application. We are already surrounded by tall blocks and thisarea is historically a low rise building industrial site.There is a junior school opposite this site over the railway track, twenty storeys would dominatethe school and be a danger for safeguarding the children.This would again block light and sun too the surrounding area.A smaller block would be more in keeping with the area.We need a mix of provision, not just student housing, this transient population dies not care aboutthe community and with the site being so close to a school it is highly inappropriate.

Not fitting with the areaDoes not have the infrastructure in placeToo close too schoolBuilding too tall for the surrounding areaPlenty of student accommodation being built we have dwindling student numbers bothinternational and local so this does not fit with a long termPlanFacilities are not being made for locals.Victoria Park caters for thousands of people already more green space is needed if more flats arebeing built, we cannot be reloant on what is already there.

Formal Objection to Planning Application 25/11778/F

I am writing as a resident of the local community to formally object to planning application25/11778/F, submitted by the Galliard Apsley Partnership. Although the applicant claims theproposal is guided by the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Framework (WSRF) and the UrbanLiving Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and has undergone substantial pre-applicationconsultation, I believe it falls short of aligning with the key principles and expectations laid out inthese planning documents-particularly in relation to building height and transport strategy.

Despite the inclusion of several supporting reports (such as the Planning Statement, TransportAssessment, Health Impact Assessment, and Commercial Strategy), there are fundamentalinconsistencies between what is proposed and what is recommended in the guiding documents.

Key Objection 1: Excessive Building Heights and DensityThe proposed building heights-especially the 19-storey Block D and the 14-storey sections ofBlock C-are significantly taller than what the WSRF defines as appropriate for this area. TheWSRF, as referenced by the applicant themselves, describes "contextual tall buildings" as thoseapproximately 30 metres in height (around 10 storeys). A 19-storey building far exceeds thisdefinition and would be clearly out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood and its intendedcharacter.

Community feedback during consultation highlighted this as the most pressing concern, with

comments describing the effect as creating a "canyon." Although some reductions in height havebeen made (e.g., lowering Block D to 18 storeys), even the applicant acknowledges that thesechanges are unlikely to satisfy those with concerns about the overall scale.

Local groups such as TRESA have suggested that a maximum of 10 storeys would be moreappropriate. This would be a more faithful interpretation of the WSRF and would better respect thesurrounding context and community.

In addition to height, the proposed density-estimated at around 530 dwellings per hectare-is farhigher than the recommended 120 dwellings per hectare for this part of the city, as stated in theUrban Living SPD and WSRF. While higher densities may be suitable in central areas starting at200 dph, the proposed figures go well beyond this and raise questions about liveability andinfrastructure strain.

Key Objection 2: Unrealistic Parking and Transport ProvisionsThe scheme is described as a "car-free development," apart from disabled parking. While this mayreflect broader city policy goals, the area's existing public transport infrastructure does not appearsufficient to support a development of this scale without more detailed and secured provisions.

Temple Meads station is over 1 kilometre away, and the nearest bus stops are 600-800 metresfrom the site. Simply removing parking provision, without adequate alternative transport measures,risks pushing additional cars into neighbouring streets, adding pressure to existing residentialparking.

Residents have voiced strong concerns about how realistic a car-free strategy is for this location,especially given the lack of detail on practical mitigation. For such an approach to work, there mustbe secured commitments for things like:

Dedicated spaces for car clubs

Clear and accessible drop-off zones for deliveries and parcel services

Substantial and secure cycle storage beyond basic minimum standards

Designated e-scooter parking

Financial support for a surrounding residents' parking scheme

At present, the proposal does not provide enough detail or guarantees on how these issues will beaddressed. The current approach appears to leave the resolution of potential knock-on effectslargely to the local authority after the fact.

Additional ConcernsBeyond the major issues with height and transport, there are several other elements of theproposal that raise serious concerns:

Privacy and Loss of Light for St Mary Redcliffe Primary School: The proposed height and massingof the development will have a direct and potentially harmful impact on St Mary Redcliffe PrimarySchool, which is located directly opposite the site. A development of this scale so close to theschool raises significant concerns about overlooking, loss of daylight, and reduced privacy forpupils and staff. The height and proximity of the buildings could create an oppressive environmentfor a school that should be afforded special protection as a sensitive community use. Theseimpacts have not been sufficiently addressed in the planning documents.

Construction Disruption: Although mitigation measures are proposed, including through a futureConstruction Environmental Management Plan, there will still likely be disruption to thesurrounding community from dust, noise, and vibration during the build phase.

Loss of Existing Employment: The development displaces existing industrial and commercialbusinesses, raising concerns about job losses, particularly in blue-collar roles. While the applicantproposes new employment space and says they are working with displaced businesses, theapplication does not clearly demonstrate how the "no net loss of jobs" objective in the WSRF willbe achieved.

Student Accommodation Concentration: Many residents expressed concerns about the inclusionof purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), feeling that the area already hosts a significantstudent population and that the development should focus on a balanced mix of housing types.The applicant argues that the area is not already saturated with students and that the PBSA will beprofessionally managed, but concerns remain about the impact on community cohesion.

Affordable Housing Segregation: All affordable homes are planned to be located in a single block(Block A), which could lead to a sense of segregation. Best practice would encourage a moreintegrated approach to affordable housing across the site.

Insufficient Transport Details for Daily Use: The community raised a need for specific, securedplans to support daily life in a car-free development, such as spaces for supermarket deliveries, e-scooter drop-off points, and parcel services. While some elements are mentioned, they are notdetailed or secured in a way that provides reassurance.

Visual and Heritage Impact: The height and scale of the tallest tower would significantly impactlocal views and the area's visual character. This is especially important given the site's proximity tothe Bedminster conservation area. Concerns were raised that the building would dominate theskyline and erode the area's historic identity.

Daylight and Sunlight Impacts: The applicant's Daylight and Sunlight Assessment shows thatsome neighbouring buildings-such as 3 Sargeant Street-will not meet BRE guidelines. While theseguidelines are advisory and may be interpreted flexibly in urban areas, the potential forovershadowing should not be dismissed.

ConclusionThis proposal, in its current form, represents a serious departure from the expectations laid out inthe WSRF and Urban Living SPD. The excessive building heights and density, combined with anunderdeveloped transport and parking strategy, raise major concerns. Additional issues-such asthe impact on a nearby primary school, affordable housing segregation, job displacement, and therisk to the area's historic character-further highlight the proposal's inadequacy.

I respectfully urge Bristol City Council to refuse this planning application unless substantialchanges are made to bring it in line with the adopted planning framework and ensure that it meetsthe needs and expectations of the local community. If the scheme is to proceed, significantconditions and obligations must be secured to address the issues outlined.

Whilst a lot of the scheme seems acceptable the random 20/21 story tower stands outas an awful blot on the scheme.

I solely blame the previous failed Mayor Marvin Rees for this disastrous policy of allowing towerblocks to be built everywhere in random locations.

The 20/21 story tower is not homes for people its just another investment vehicle for developers.With restrictions coming in for the number of foreign students I question the need for this.

The part listed terrace at York Road will be impacted by this awful scheme, it was clear thoughtwas given when this terrace was rebuilt/restored and this did not involve the skyline beingdamaged behind this historic terrace skyline. This will also affect in a bad way the nearbyBedminster Conservation area.

The tower reminds me of the sort of random ugliness the Communists inflicted on the formerEastern European cites.

I would also question why the City is allowing so many more places to be built for non payingCouncil Tax payers. Bristol's basic services are already under pressure, adding more non counciltax payers to the mix will lead to more pressure on struggling public services.

The block will also cast a shadow over the well used Victoria Park multi purpose area. Some

rubbish is in the brief to say part of the bock will be obscured by trees, if you are planning to builda building so bad you need it obscured you should not build it in the first place. The park trees arenot giant redwoods so the domineering 20/21 story tower will be clearly seen all over Bristol.

In short this scheme needs a rethink. If the scheme was say around 10 stories it would fit moreeasily into the area blending in more with the beautiful Totterdown terraces and Bedminsterconservation area.

Our neighbourhood can't take any more redevelopment. It is currently groaning with thenew high rises, including student accommodation and one/two bedroom flats. It is a challenge totravel out of Windmill Hill already but adding more cars will make it near impossible. Theinfrastructure neededto cope with yet more people isn't in place and there seems little inclusion of this in planning e.g.doctors, dentists etc. There needs to be a balance of high rise against developments that benefitthe community. As a community we feel more and more put upon yet other areas such a Redland,Clifton, Cotham etc don't seem to be having the same high rise building developments there, Iwonder why? The views from the park are spectacular, the erosion of these has been tolerated toa degree so far but more is quite frankly unacceptable. I totally oppose this development, havingaccepted some of the others as a need for change and housing but enough is enough!

This is way too high - out of keeping with current buildings.

There are not enough amenities to support this number of students e.g. adequate public transport,Doctor's surgeries

This area is desperately short of long term affordable accommodation for working people andfamilies.

Huge amounts of student accommodation is already being built in St Philips - this is simplyunnecessary.

The elevation of these blocks will completely block the view that's enjoyed from VictoriaPark by all walks of life in South Bristol and is what make Victoria Park so special.

People from South Bristol will feel even more cut off from North Bristol. The viewing point andsunsets enjoyed by so many will be lost forever.

If you visit Windmill Hill you should be able to see the damage that's already been done byblocking the view with high rise. Not to mention the lack of parking, schools, doctors etc and thefact that these won't be long term homes for the people of Bristol. You have the opportunity tocreate homes and communities, blocks this high won't create either.

Over development of the area and excessive height. Family housing with gardens areneeded by the neighbourhood to alleviate housing crisis, not student accommodation.Developers/universities should pay a lump sum of council tax on an annual basis to make up forthe lack of student council tax and the added strain they put on local services.

This is a completely inappropriate location for a twenty storey development. It is directlyin front of the best view from Victoria Park. Stroll up there on an evening and you will see lots ofpeople enjoying the setting sun over one of the most striking views in Bristol - a true sense ofcommunity. This development will totally ruin that. Not to mention the additional pressures ontraffic, parking and public services in the area that such a development will bring. I strongly objectto this development.