I object to the variation of condition 60 - there should be some affordable housingavailable. Building tower blocks of flats, which now aren't even going to be "affordable" andtherefore do not support the theory of providing housing for those in need, is in no way beneficialto the people of Bristol. This proposal seems to run counter to the Council's own Corporate andHousing Strategy.

Where is the evidence that 'Options to explore a lower density, which would reduce build cost arecontrary to key local policies and would erode the scheme to a position which would be deemedunsatisfactory' as stated in the letter? Please provide this. Plus, what are these key local policies?This is an extremely vague sentence. On the contrary, a reduction in the number and density ofthis scheme seems an ideal solution! Perhaps the site, with its flood risk status, requiring hugefinancial contributions to overcome this, suggests this isn't the right site for this development in thefirst place!

On the 17/4 one objector wrote:

'I note the Viability Report. As I read it, the project will run at a loss if the Affordable Housespromised in the project remain at 40% of the development. So we Bristol Tax Payers will bepaying for the project. OR, much more likely, the developer backtracks on the Affordable Housingnumbers in the proposal and makes a profit. Please don't be fooled and give it your approval. Forthe many reasons, financial, environmental and life threatening, the whole project needs to be sentback to the drawing board.'

How totally right and insightful this objector was!

I also agree with a recent objector who sums the situation up rather well:

....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 givingaway the family silver to third parties, when the council keeps pleading poverty.

Exactly, and why can the people in the area see this but not the council and cllrs sitting onplanning committees!

The application confirms that the development of the site is unviable without additional publicsubsidy for the affordable housing and that the market is weak for owner occupied apartments (asdemonstrated by the slow sales at Macarthur's Yard) adjacent to the SS Great Britain and thus thewhole development needs to be rejected and admitted that it was a poorly chosen wrong site tostart with!

This ugly 'tower block' project should be abandoned altogether. It is a travesty and very shortsighted of the council and I can not believe that they are allowing this development and thevandalism and ruination of Bristol Harbour to occur.

The buildings are much too tall for this area. The existing buildings at this end of the harbour arenowhere as high as this proposal. Pooles Wharf, Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf developmentswere all agreed with a height restriction of three stories. This precedent was set in 1982. (when thevalue of heritage was obviously understood!) The iconic waterfront of the western end of theharbour and Underfall Yard should not be dwarfed by this new development as it will alter theiconic image of the area.

It is therefore out of keeping with the current low rise historical buildings in the area. Thedevelopment should preserve or enhance the historic environment. This damages the visualintegrity of the area, negatively impacting upon its architectural cohesion. This is completelycontrary to Policy BCS21. It does not 'contribute positively to an area's character and identity,creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness' instead it destroys it! There is no attempt in thedevelopment to fit in with the character of the area, or even the wider area of Bristol in which it issituated.

In addition, how will the proposed tall buildings affect sailing on the harbour? I am assuming theywill prevent wind on the harbour and negatively impact the sailing club. This space should bedesignated for leisure purposes, not more housing which already surrounds the docks.

This is a quiet area of the docks which is enjoyed for its peacefulness. There is no need foradditional commercial space included in the development; local facilities are adequate. Removethe commercial space and reduce the height of the tower blocks. There will be commercial spacein the harbour side development.

Housing in Baltic Wharf will be overlooked, severely compromising privacy, in the shade andovershadowed, with loss of light - again against planning policy (was any planning policyfollowed?)

This has conveniently and incorrectly been termed a 'brown site'. There will be a huge loss anddestruction of mature trees and hedgerows (the majority of them) that should not be allowed. Tofell these trees in a "clean air" zone and inevitably increase future levels of traffic on CumberlandRoad is hypocritical under the Council's environment policy. The loss of existing mature trees willnegatively affect air quality, biodiversity and the character of the conservation area. This is anessential green area for birds and wildlife which provides 'lungs' in an area which is alreadydensely built-up. It should be preserved for the future. The existing trees have obviously not beensufficiently considered in the design, particularly those around the area perimeter. Architecturaland landscaping plans should incorporate the trees, not fell them," It is counter-productive tointroduce environmental levies while removing vital urban greenery. The replacement trees aremuch fewer in number of which the majority are also small-form ornamentals which will producevery little canopy cover and take at least 27 years to achieve.

The area is a flood risk - paying off the environmental agency doesn't change this. Trees howeverassist with drainage. Adding a commercial level to the proposal does not. Is it ok for commercialbusinesses to flood but not houses? Building up the height of the area to avoid flooding is notsolving the issue of flooding but increasing the height of a development that is much too high andis obviously unsuitable for the site.

The caravan park is unique, an asset for Bristol, and adds character and brings tourists to thearea. The site is always fully booked during weekends throughout the year and all week duringspring and summer with 56 pitches. Visitors spend money locally and help businesses and thelocal economy. How many other cities can boast a caravan park on the edge of the docks and soclose to the centre? Why the council is intent on destroying these things that make Bristolattractive to visitors is beyond me. Gems such as this should be preserved. There are alreadymany dockside flats and more places where we could build homes. To destroy such a wonderfulasset is incredibly short-sighted.

In addition, the infrastructure is insufficient to provide the necessary facilities for the increasedpopulation. Road access is already restricted along Cumberland Road. Where is provision forGP's and dentists necessary for the extra number of people. It will only increase traffic noise,congestion and pollution with no benefits at all for those living in the area.

Bristol cannot be classed as a green city and I'm so sad that the council want to ruin this importantarea of the docks against the wishes of the people of Bristol. This is yet another money makingscheme by an over zealous developer at the expense of a much needed visitor attraction to ourcity. The damage caused by this proposed development will be far greater than any (zero) benefitarising from it. The amended application and original proposal must be refused as the hugenumber of objections testify. Please leave this caravan park alone and abandon the inappropriateand bad decision to build on this site.

The original planning permission for this application did not include a plan of theaffordable housing element in the list of approved drawings. A non material amendment has beensubmitted and granted to 'insert a policy-compliant' plan into the list. This application now seeks toremove it again. This is on the basis of advice received 'on the route to take in order to change theamount of affordable housing provided subsidy free'. That amount would now be nought.The original application was granted because it provided the 'full target percentage of affordablehousing', subsidy free as required by the council's Core Strategy. This was 'accorded particularlysignificant weight' and it is questionable whether permission for this development would ever havebeen given without it. If this application is granted it allows the possibility of there being noaffordable housing at all and certainly none subsidy free.The developers have agreed that Sovereign could buy any affordable housing, if it materialises,'using Homes England funding to support their offer', Sovereign being the only group interested asthe developers found there was a 'lack of demand from the Registered Provider market foraffordable housing at Baltic Wharf'. 'Support their offer' doesn't sound like a commitment to fundthe full cost of the 66 units required by the original planning permission. If it doesn't cover the fullcost, will Sovereign, later down the line, find that buying relatively expensive flats at Baltic Wharf isnot the best use of their money and no other Registered Provider is interested either.The whole point of Goram Homes, as the council's housing developer, is to build homes for socialrent and retain them in council ownership, by building them subsidy free on land they are virtuallygiven by the council. This can only be done if the scheme is financially viable and this schemenever has been and this has been known from the start. Redloft's original financial report explicitlysaid that no affordable housing could be built subsidy free, but this was knowingly ignored whenthe scheme was granted permission. Now their second report, saying the same thing, has been

submitted to justify the granting of this application to remove the subsidy free housing.So, if this application is granted there could be no affordable housing. No confirmed grant is on thetable - 'discussions have progressed'. Sovereign have already reduced their offer price and maydo so again, buy less than the consented 40 percent or none at all, and no other provider iswaiting in the wings. Eventually all the flats will be sold privately. The council will be giving awayvaluable land, taking the financial risk of construction, retaining none of the flats and only Hillsstands to profit.Please, do not grant this application.

I have objected from the start, and continue to object to the destruction of this popularand well utilised campsite, the needless removal of so many mature trees and hedgerow, whenthere remain abandoned existing buildings (such as the Debenhams store and bond buildings)that could be utilised. Thanks to the managed decline of this area of Bristol, the road network isalready poorly maintained, with the cut road continuing to slip into the river, and I do not see howbuilding tower blocks of flats, which now aren't even going to be "affordable" and therefore do notsupport the theory of providing housing for those in need, is in any way going to be of benefit. Inmy view, this plan is of detriment to the area.

I have objected from the start, and continue to object to the destruction of this popularand well utilised campsite, the needless removal of so many mature trees and hedgerow, whenthere remain abandoned existing buildings (such as the Debenhams store and bond buildings)that could be utilised. Thanks to the managed decline of this area of Bristol, the road network isalready poorly maintained, with the cut road continuing to slip into the river, and I do not see howbuilding tower blocks of flats, which now aren't even going to be "affordable" and therefore do notsupport the theory of providing housing for those in need, is in any way going to be of benefit. Inmy view, this plan is of detriment to the area.

I am a local resident, already residing in adjacent to the proposed development.

For what it's worth I STRONGLY OBJECT to any development at all here. Again, forwhat it's worth, I believe any consultation by the council is merely a box ticking exerciseand local views are largely ignored. But so, I can't say I didn't give it; here's my briefview.

To call it a Brown Field site is a joke. The site is full of mature trees, a hedgerow andprobably supports plenty of birds and insects.

To fell these trees in "clean air" zone and inevitably increase future levels of traffic onCumberland Road is nothing sort of hypocritical.

Don't mind being called a 'Nimby' but the proposed height of the new buildings is toohigh.Many in Baltic Wharf will be overlooked and in the shade. None of the otherdevelopments at this end of the harbour are that high.

Personally, I think the caravan park is an absolute little hidden gem there. It's really niceto see all the folk who use it bring their deck chairs out onto the harbourside and enjoythe sunsets. How many other city centres can boast a caravan site within a mile of thecentre?

And finally, residents along both ends of Cumberland Rd are simply fed up with ongoingworks and disruption.

o 3yrs of temporary lights when the river wall fell down.o 3yrs for Vauxhall bridge to be repairedo 2 yrs of temporary lights by Wapping Wharfo Temporary lights for Bathurst bridge repairso No residents exemption for the bus gate.o Now, undoubtedly more to come for the construction site entrance here.

Rant over. I'll expect to be ignored. All I ask is that these comments can be made publicas I'm not able to comment via 'planning online via our website' as your lettersuggested.

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.

The proposal seeks to "remove the affordable housing plan within the approved list ofdrawings" because of "the challenges with providing affordable housing at the site withoutsubsidy". The covering letter indicates an intent to maintain the "committed quantum of affordablehomes" whilst not appearing to give any firm proposals for how this would be achieved if theaffordable housing plan is removed from the existing planning permission.

The Council's Corporate Strategy confirms their "commitment to a sustainable, equitable andthriving Bristol". The Council's Housing Strategy confirms they "are committed to minimising roughsleeping and homelessness in Bristol and enabling citizens in need of housing to accessaffordable, needs-based accommodation".

This proposal seems to run counter to the Council's own Corporate and Housing Strategy.

If the agreed plan (Approved Planning Permission Ref: 21/01331/F) for the site is no longer viable,then the plan as a whole should be revisited rather than just removing a difficult or expensive part.

I therefore object to the proposal.

The Caravan Club has brought many visitors to the area who spend money locally andhelp businesses. Closing it will have a negative effect on the local economy.Too many established trees will be removed to allow building work.The size of the planned apartment blocks will overlook existing properties and they are not inkeeping with the nature of the area.Given the vacant business premises in the area, the inclusion of retail units is unnecessary, andmany are likely to remain empty.The infrastructure is insufficient to provide the necessary facilities for the increased population.Road access is already restricted along Cumberland Road. Where is provision for schools, GP'sand dentists necessary for the extra number of people.

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.