I think it is very sad to lose the only place in Bristol for visitors in camper vans. We havevery many dockside flats and more places where we could build homes. This Caravan club isunique and very popular, before it's future was up for debate it was always full. Bristol should beencouraging tourists of this type, not building on this rare commodity.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I live at 14 Meredith Court, Canada Way, very near the Caravan Club on CumberlandRoad. Thank you for your letter inviting comments on the proposal to erect residentialbuildings and associated infrastructure.

While I appreciate there is a need to build more homes, I am appalled by plans toconstruct residential dwellings on the Caravan Club in Bristol. The result of this will bethat most of the trees will be cut down here. These trees provide much needed greenspace by the busy road. For residents, they act as a buffer from all the air pollution andnoise from the nearby traffic. The area should not have been classed as brown fieldsite. It is horrifying to think of these decades old trees being removed.

With this relentless drive to put down more tarmac and concrete (which makessummers in cities like Bristol even hotter) can Bristol truly be classed as a green city? Itneed hardly be added that the population increase as a result of the new buildings willonly increase traffic noise, congestion and pollution. This is not welcome.

I doubt this email will affect the decision that has already been made to get thesebuildings up, and if it is read, I may just expect a quick reply with a few generalisedplatitudes on the need for more housing.

Yet I am sending it anyway.

Yours faithfully

Pooles Wharf, Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf developments were all agreed with aheight restriction of three stories. This precedent was set in 1982. The iconic waterfront of thewestern end of the harbour and Underfall Yard should not be dwarfed by this new development asit will alter the iconic image of the area.

It is not clear exactly what this amendment is asking for. Therefore it is difficult for the600 people notified (the original objectors) to properly comment. This seems like a trick to preventfurther objection.But from my reading of the request to wipe condition 60, it seems to be asking to remove theobligation imposed by the 2024 planning consent, to build 40% affordable housing withoutsubsidy.Goram Homes was established in order to convert council-owned land into council-ownedhousing.But not one of these proposed flats will be owned by the council.We seem to be giving away the family silver to third parties, when the council keeps pleadingpoverty. I object.

The current proposal does not adequately consider the impacts on the neighbouringBaltic Wharf Estate.

The key reasons for objection are:

1. Privacy. Block C of the new proposal is shown as a 5 storey unit with balconies facing ontoWeare Court. At its closest point these balconies are shown as approx. 15m from the existingproperties. This will result in direct overlooking into the windows of existing properties, significantlycompromising residents' privacy. This is the case along the eastern boundary of the proposeddevelopment. This is likely to devalue properties.

2. Loss of light. Blocks B, C, and D all border the western properties of the Baltic Wharf Estate.These a 5 and 6 storey developments which will be significantly taller than the existingneighbouring properties. This will result in a significant loss of light, especially in the evening, forthese residents properties and gardens. This is also likely to be

3. Size of development. An additional 166 dwelling of various sizes will significantly increase thedemand on local infrastructure in what is already an insufficiently served area. Further to this, thewestern area of the harbour is characterised by its historic and 'quiet' environment. Introducingsuch a large capacity, tall, modern development will negatively affect the character of the area.There is no attempt in the development to fit in with the character of the area, or even the widerarea of Bristol in which it is situated.

4. Tree removal. The number of trees to be removed is excessive. Whilst I can appreciate that treeremoval is probably necessary for any significant development here, it is evident that the existingtrees have not been sufficiently considered in the design, especially those around the areaperimeter. These could be easily avoided.

I have no strong opposition the development of residential properties in the area in general,especially the introduction of affordable housing. However, I do strongly oppose this currentproposal as it is excessive in size and has not sufficiently considered neighbouring residents.

The application confirms that the development of the site is unviable without additionalpublic subsidy for the affordable housing and that the market is weak for owner occupiedapartments (as demonstrated by the slow sales at Macarthur's Yard) adjacent to the SS GreatBritain.

Whilst not doubting the overall need for more housing, this site is clearly not the solution and thisdevelopment should be dropped. Apart from the lack of viability now highlighted by the Developersthemselves, the original reasons for objecting to the development remain, namely:-* The loss of so many mature trees with inadequate requirements for replacement.* The loss of a unique leaisure facility in the caravan site.* Proposed blocks are too high and out of character with the surrounding developments.* There is no need for additional commercial space; local facilities are adequate and needadditional trade. The Commercial units at Macarthur's Yard remain empty after 2 years.

The amended application and original proposal fall to be declined.

The infrastructure for Spike Island is already stretched beyond capacity with thecompletion of several new developments completed recently, which aren't fully occupied yet.

The caravan site offers a really great opportunity for visitors to come to Bristol in a delightful self-catering location, which will damage the tourism reputation and opportunities in Bristol.

Building more flats in this area will mean the quality of life for those already living in the area willbe damaged and people will leave the city, resulting in a loss of council tax revenue for the citycouncil.

I strongly oppose the development of the caravan site.1. There are existing tress in the conservation zone which would have to be cut down.2. The high rise building are completely out of style with the historic harbour.3. The tall buildings will block light from the baltic wharf Estate.4. The tall buildings will prevent wind on the harbour and negatively impact the sailing club.5. The caravan site allows everyone to have a taste of harbour life.6. The caravan site was founded here when no one else would invest. It has historic value.7. The infrastructure of spike island and surroundings roads is insufficient to support more homesand retail, particularly on this scale.8. The area is a flood risk - paying off the environmental agency doesn't change this9. Buildings the new homes will cause significant disruption to a community who have had ongoing building work for many years.10. The increased noise levels and foot fall in not in keeping with this end of the harbour.