Application Details

Reference 19/02181/F
Address Hutchison 3G Installation 2 - 14 Elm Road Bristol  
Street View
Proposal Replacement of 6No. antennas and supporting steel-work on building roof-top with 10m high roof-top tower supporting upgraded radio apparatus, installation of 10No. equipment housing cabinets, plus ancillary works.
Validated 21-05-19
Type Full Planning
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 24-06-19
Determination Deadline 16-07-19
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 23-07-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 1 Objectors: 105    Total: 106
No. of Page Views 27

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 19-07-19

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

The Bishopston Society is extremely concerned about this application for a 5G mast 17m above ground level and in the middle of a dense residential area. The mast will be a hugeeyesore and will overshadow the gardens of neighbouring houses. Furthermore, the potentialhealth risks to local residents as well as biodiversity and ecology of this untested technology in adense urban area is of great concern.

We strongly recommend refusal .

Mr Sean Peters 30 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The height of this proposed structure is unacceptable for a residential neighbourhoodand is totally not in keeping with a Victorian terrace street.

It will look ugly and completely out of character. The top of the tower, with antennas on will be 17mup from ground level. The building it's on is the only non residential building in the area of twostorey Victorian terrace houses.

It will overshadow the nearby houses.

Mr Peter Griffiths 91 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The Mast is of a height that is unacceptable in relation to the surrounding area.The mast is of no benefit to the neighbourhood except for the owners of the property.The strcture is an unsafe height for the surrounding houses in an emergency.Local properties will have their views blocked by the mast.The safety of the 5G technology is unhealthyAnd untested.

Miss Helen Watts 20 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This will be an unsightly blight on the landscape of the neighborhood and totally out ofcharacter. It will be seen by many of the surrounding streets and from the park. There are alsopotential health concerns and potential harm to biodiversity. I strongly object to this installation.

Mr Leroy Bogle 56 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

A 10m high installation, i.e. a tower over 30 feet high on top of an already ugly concreteblock in the heart of a Victorian residential area is clearly a bad idea unless you're the owner of theproperty and collecting the location fee. An eyesore with few benefits is not an attractiveproposition, so I wish to object on the grounds of Amenity, Design and Appearance. Biodiversity,or rather the harmful impact on biodiversity is another ground for opposition, alongside the effectson property prices and health concerns over untested technology.

Mrs Teresa Arnold  47 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a local resident and home owner I strongly object to this proposal. Visually it will bean eyesore and look completely out of place in its surroundings, and will potentially affect propertyprices in the area. It will be visible from both our house and garden as well as horfield common. Asnew parents we are also worried about health risks caused by untested technology being in suchclose proximity.

Mrs Marie Pride 29 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I think this installation will be an eyesore and not in keeping with an historical residentialarea. I am also concerned about the possible negative health aspects of unproven 5G technology.The area is already suffering from stalled house prices and this installation will not help anyonetrying to sell their house.

Mr Sam Huelin S   OBJECT

On behalf of myself and many of the residents at Elm Road Studios, we think theinstallation of this new 5G radio apparatus is an atrocious idea. For one, this new aerial will be anabsolute eye sore casting its shadow over people's garden's and sticking out like a sore, spindlythumb to be seen for miles around. Secondly but more importantly however, there has not beennear enough sufficient research into the effects of this higher frequency MMW bandwidth onhuman health, not to mention biodiversity or ecology.

It is absolutely not justified to be invading residents' personal space with apparatus that could bepotentially harmful to living organisms - and for who's benefit? We will be quite frankly appalled ifthis installation goes ahead and will be demanding it's deconstruction immediately.

Mrs Sarah Mackeson  7 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed installation at 2-14 Elm Road for a number of reasons.Firstly on the grounds of Amenity, Design and Appearance. The tower will dominate what ispredominantly a residential area full of families etc (the only businesses are a couple of garagesreally) and it will be a total eyesore. It will limit light in many gardens and will be totally out ofcharacter for the neighbourhood. The proposed tower will emit frequencies which are proven to beharmful to insects (and quite possibly humans) and will negatively impact the area's biodiversity.The technology is relatively untested and it's potentially harmful impact could well be very high, asthere have already been links made to cancer, tumours and other illnesses. It makes me incrediblyanxious as we are raising a family here. This is a lovely area with a strong community and doesnot deserve to have something so ugly, dominating and harmful put in the middle of it and badlyaffecting both the look of the area and the health of its inhabitants. I very much hope you willconsider the far reaching opposition to this structure and not put it there.

Mr BRIAN HOOD 6 CHURCH ROAD, HORFIELD, BRISTOL BS7 8SA   OBJECT

This application to replace should be taken as a first application as the originalinstallation did not need planning permission, and the owner of the said building a Mr StevenMathew Harrison Alban Finch, made his duty that no one would find out about this installation untilthe installation had started.I knew but was warned by Mr Finch that if I told anybody we would full out.Therefore no one in the area could complain about Hutchison 3G installation. When the equipmentwas turned on instant interference came onto BBC 2.The trouble is we have no way of knowing ifthis 5G technology will cause adverse health problems, interference on free to air TV channels.We certainly have not been told about any increased power output, radiation levels. The othertrouble is that this installation is slap bang in a residential area.This antennas will be like a single- decker bus on end, what an eyesore it would be. If it were to goahead and interference to free to air TV signals was caused who would foot the bill to sort out thetrouble caused, and on health grounds how could anybody solve the problems.Under Health and Safety legislation no one can endanger one's self or other people or persons, soif the Development Control Committee pass this planning application and health issues arise, thenBristol City Council would in breach of this said legislation. This is because this installation is theonly one I know about which is surrounded by houses.

Mr Ezra Gray FLAT S17 ELM ROAD STUDIOS BRISTOL   OBJECT

I and many / if not all of the residents of Elm Road studios strongly object for theupgrade of the antenna which is currently situated under 20 meters from our flat.

We have not received any detailed information about the upgrade, and it would seem that the factit is being upgraded to provide 5g coverage has been hard to obtain. I realise due to the fact therehas been questions regarding the safety of 5g that it is in the best interest of the company to keepthis quiet. But surely this is not the way to go about this?

If we received accurate details providing scientific proof that 5g will not have negative long or shortterm effects on humans or the ecology of the area, perhaps the addition of the tower would beconsidered. However, at this point myself, and many others I have spoken to, have not receivedany information which confirms the safety of 5g.

Another thing to consider, is that myself and my girlfriend will be living closest to the tower. Surelythese towers should not be placed on residential buildings, as clearly they output high levels ofmagnetic radiation and operate using high amounts of electricity. I am completely certain livingwithin a certain range of these towers could be detrimental to health, the information has not beenprovided to stop my concerns, and this should absolutely not happen without consent fromresidents who live within a certain radius.

There is also the question of how it will visually effect the area. At this moment, the area providesa welcome break from city living, with lovely views and quintessential victorian architecture. Theplan to instal the tower will have a incredibly detrimental effect on the area.

Another point is that people probably do not even want 5g coverage. Surely residents should beasked first to confirm whether the expense is even necessary? Or is this all just driven by moneyand profit - at the expense of the resident.

I strongly object.

Mr Ezra Gray FLAT S17 ELM ROAD STUDIOS BRISTOL   OBJECT

I and many / if not all of the residents of Elm Road studios strongly object for theupgrade of the antenna which is currently situated under 20 meters from our flat.

We have not received any detailed information about the upgrade, and it would seem that the factit is being upgraded to provide 5g coverage has been hard to obtain. I realise due to the fact therehas been questions regarding the safety of 5g that it is in the best interest of the company to keepthis quiet. But surely this is not the way to go about this?

If we received accurate details providing scientific proof that 5g will not have negative long or shortterm effects on humans or the ecology of the area, perhaps the addition of the tower would beconsidered. However, at this point myself, and many others I have spoken to, have not receivedany information which confirms the safety of 5g.

Another thing to consider, is that myself and my girlfriend will be living closest to the tower. Surelythese towers should not be placed on residential buildings, as clearly they output high levels ofmagnetic radiation and operate using high amounts of electricity. I am completely certain livingwithin a certain range of these towers could be detrimental to health, the information has not beenprovided to stop my concerns, and this should absolutely not happen without consent fromresidents who live within a certain radius.

There is also the question of how it will visually effect the area. At this moment, the area providesa welcome break from city living, with lovely views and quintessential victorian architecture. Theplan to instal the tower will have a incredibly detrimental effect on the area.

Another point is that people probably do not even want 5g coverage. Surely residents should beasked first to confirm whether the expense is even necessary? Or is this all just driven by moneyand profit - at the expense of the resident.

I strongly object.

Dr Jonathan Kirk 51 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

My previous comment and stance in "support" of this planning application was enteredin error and unfortunately, appears irrevocable. What a plonker. To be clear I object, and to repeatmyself...

The proposed installation utterly dwarfs the existing one. At well over 15m in height, its tower (onthe very corner of Elm and Oak Roads) would dominate over these and surrounding roads.I object to the proposed development on the grounds of its crass and unavoidable aestheticimpact. It is regrettable that there has been no attempt to integrate or disguise the proposedinstallation in its Victorian terraced neighbourhood setting, or indeed to consult proactively withlocal residents on proposals that might meet have met with wider approval.

Unknown   OBJECT

Ms Clare Bishop 12 RODBOURNE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This mast would represent an intrusion on the visual landscape for residents in thelocality, as well as a the numerous visitors to Horfield Common. It would be completely out ofkeeping with the area, towering over residential properties. There are also unknown healthimplications associated with such antenna.

Ms Jessica Read 35 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am deeply concerned to hear about planning application for a 10m G5 mast in theimmediate vicinity of my home for multiple reasons.

Firstly, I am upset that information about this application was not sufficiently provided to localneighbours who live in nearby and who would be affected by this construction. The pinned upnotice is barely visible beneath foliage, and seems to have been expressly placed to be not seen.

I object wholely to this proposal. The health risks of electro magenetic frequency from cell mastsare well established. From ths risks of G5 can be modelled to be considerable. At the same timebecause there is no long term research, to expose residents to this level of health risk is wholeirresponsible.

Furthermore, the existing mobile is already unsightly in a family neighbourhood setting, withhistoric industrial buildings which should probably be protected.

A larger mast will negatively impact the value of my property to a substantial degree.

Overall, such a large, and dangerous mast is totally out of keeping with the neighbourhoodcharacter. The profit of an individual company should not be placed about the quality andliveability of our city.

Please reject this planning application.best regards,

Jess

Mrs Anna Darby 66 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL BRISTOL   OBJECT

We absolutely oppose this proposal on the grounds that despite 5G apparently being'the future of telecomms', there is currently plenty of evidence to suggest that there may beconsiderable and severe long term health hazards and negative environmental effects from a 5Gwireless network. Living in a densely populated area with many families with children, this issomething not we take lightly. Until more research is done, the infrastructure for this networkshould not be implemented and the telecomms industry should not benefit at the expense of thehealth of population and the environment.

Ms Janet Taylor 31 MAPLE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object strongly to the proposal to erect a ten metre tall roof-top tower above Elm Roadgarages. I believe it would have a huge and significant impact on the area, on both residential andvisual amenity.As it would be in the middle of a densely populated area of Victorian terraced houses, it would bean eyesore to many people, and block the light of those nearest. The area is characterised in theapplication as a mixture of business and residential. This is not really the case, as the application'sown photographs show. In fact the garages are the only businesses in the area.Horfield Common is nearby, and as we are on a hill, it rises up above the area in question. Thismeans that this well-used and necessary recreational amenity would have the peaceful views itcurrently enjoys interrupted by this looming tower.I would also like to refer to the brief mention in the documentation that the tower would be visibleto commuters for "a short period of time". This must mean that it will be visible to commuters asthey pass by in buses and cars. It follows then that it will be visible from the Gloucester Road, andto everyone who lives or works there, and for all the time. This extends the area of visibilityconsiderably.I would like again to draw your attention to the fact that we are on a hill. Just as this huge unsightlytower would be visible from the Common, it will also be visible from much further to the South asthe ground drops away on the other side of the Gloucester Road.I would like to add my agreement with those commenting here who have mentioned health, wildlifeand house price issues. These are as equally important as the concerns I have outlined here. It ismy hope that you will reject this proposal.

Mrs Rosalinde Evitt 17 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We object to the proposed 10m tower installation as it is not at all in keeping with theVictorian residential area. The existing towers are already imposing enough.

Given the absence of certainty on the health implications of this technology, I also object to theinstallation of the tower close to so many residents, many of whom have small children.

I would also like to highlight how poorly publicised this development has been in the local area, asI was told through a neighbour. I would suggest that the neighbour notification list should havecovered a much wider area given how imposing the proposed structure would be.

Mrs Karen Kooyman 73 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Road.The tower will not be in keeping with the area and style of the Victorian houses: It will be aneyesore. Research on the effect of RF radiation emitted from the towers of this kind so far haspointed to the negative effect on people's health. In such a densely populated area, with manyyoung families living in close proximity, it would be negligent to move forward with this proposalwithout extensive research into its safety. We would urge the council to reject this planningapplication.

Mr Alister Wynn 9 ROZEL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am objecting to this on the grounds of the harmful effects that EMF has on our healthwhich is well researched. We don't need more of this type of technology, 4G is more than enough.

Miss Cris Canals 18 ASH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am opposed to this installation for various reasons; aesthetically unsightly and largescale, environmental and health concerns and impact.It is a disgraceful shame that there has been little or no warning about this atrocious proposal onour doorstep, to harm a community of families who feel so strongly about environmental issues

Mr Jonathan Webb 4 MAPLE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to the 10m high roof-top tower being built 2-14 Elm Road. Arguably, the6No. antennas are, at a couple of metres high, already unsightly for an Edwardian residential areaand completely out of keeping with its architectural character. This will make the skyline muchworse.

There is also an ambiguity in the scientific world about the safety of 5G radiation and the link withillnesses such as cancer. Is enough known about health concerns before pushing on through?Related to the shorter, and potentially more hazardous wavelengths, the shorter the distance hasto be between antenna and end user. This would mean 10m towers springing up everywhere, toestablish the necessary coverage, so it is not that I am just concerned about my little corner ofBristol; an abundance of these towers will completely change the visual nature of oursurroundings. Combine this with the concerns to health, I should imagine this will generate a greatdeal of push back on 5g. So is it even worth pushing on with this obtrusive infrastructure before apolitical consensus on 5g has been established? It's a moot point whether 5g is even necessary,as with the additional power needed to drive 5g, 4g will be the default service for many years tocome. And why not just fix the existing network for 3 and 4g instead of having dead spots in somany places?I also object to how little communication was given about the intention of installing such a tall mastwith such contentious technology. I only found out about it when a neighbour informed me aboutthe planning intent. Greater awareness should have been made.

Ms Francesca Garton 41 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Roadon the grounds of Amenity, Design and Appearance.As this is a densely populated residential area, this tower will be an eyesore to all who live closeby and visually will be out of place with the Victorian architecture/character of the neighbourhoodand will bring down the value of our homes.We are extremely concerned as a young family about the potential health effects that 5G will haveon us and all of our neighbours, as well as the negative effects it will have on biodiversity in thisarea.

We urge the council to reject this planning application.

Dr Amy Valenzia 40 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

:We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Roadon the grounds of Amenity, Design and Appearance. As this is a densely populated residentialarea, this tower will be an eyesore to all who live close by and visually will be out of place with theVictorian architecture/character of the neighbourhood and will bring down the value of our homes.We are extremely concerned as a young family about the potential health effects that 5G will haveon us and all of our neighbours, as well as the negative effects it will have on biodiversity in thisarea. We urge the council to reject this planning application.

Dr Andrew Valenzia 40 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

:We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Roadon the grounds of Amenity, Design and Appearance. As this is a densely populated residentialarea, this tower will be an eyesore to all who live close by and visually will be out of place with theVictorian architecture/character of the neighbourhood and will bring down the value of our homes.We are extremely concerned as a young family about the potential health effects that 5G will haveon us and all of our neighbours, as well as the negative effects it will have on biodiversity in thisarea. We urge the council to reject this planning application.

Ms Lela McTernan 34 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this installation of a 10 meter high roof top tower in our beautifulvictorian residential area. The grounds I object on are Amenity, Design and Appearance. This willbe a total eyesore and completely out of character for the area. i am concerned about the effect itwill have on biodiversity and the potentially negative impact on health from untested andcontroversail 5G technology.

Ms Pippa Elsey 41 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This shouldn't be put into a very built up residential area, surely better locations inBristol

Ms Lydia Blake 29 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application on the basis that the height and scale of the installation iswholly inappropriate for the setting of small, period, residential homes.

A more suitable location for this mast would surely be at Golden Hill Tesco?

In addition the consultation process for this application appears to have been highly flawed. Notonly were we not on the list of consulted addresses despite the fact the mast will dominate theview from our property, but it appears the postcode used for our neighbours was incorrect.

Mr Paul Stopler 19 CHURCH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the construction of this new 5G mast.This technology is dangerous to human beings and wildlife.This military grade radiation is harmful to anyone in the area.Please don't allow this development to proceed.

Miss Cat Simpson 32A MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am concerned about the proposed installation given that the full risks of 5G are not yetfully understood and the negative impact it would have on the aesthetic of the area.

Miss Karen Dowell 19 CHURCH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the construction of this new 5G mast.The safety of 5G is not yet known and we are being human experiment subjects for thistechnology. This development should not proceed.

Miss Lily Brett S17 ELM RD STUDIOS BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed planning regarding the 10m high 5G antenna at Elm Rd.

A 10metre mast will cause an incredible eyesore on the local residential area as well as affectingthe re-sell value of many of the properties near-by.I am also concerned about the potential health risks regarding the lack on information given to thepublic regarding it.

The WHO has already regarded RF as a 2B carcinogen. Studies have already linked low levelradio wavelength radiation with a long list of negative health impacts including:Oxidative damage to the cells and DNA breaksMelatonin reduction and disruption of circadian rhythmsDisruption of cell metabolismDisruption of mitochondrial energy production

I Strongly object this new antenna being put in, it is less than 20metres from my main living spaceand bedroom and there has not been any studies regarding long term close range emission of 5Gradio waves on people.

Mrs Louise Fearnside 42 MAPLE ROAS BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to this proposal for several reasons, mainly due to the potentialhealth impacts on a neighbourhood which is densely populated with young families and also theimpact that it could have on local wildlife. It will also create an eyesore in our neighbourhood.

Mr John Fearnside 42 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to this proposal for several reasons, mainly due to the potentialhealth impacts on a neighbourhood which is densely populated with young families and also theimpact that it could have on local wildlife. It will also create an eyesore in our neighbourhood.

Ms Kate Blackmore  5 ROZEL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I oppose this on grounds of amenity, design and appearance , harmful to biodiversity ,negative effects on health from untested 5 G technology , property prices .

Dr Shane Matthews  5 ROZEL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I oppose this on grounds of amenity, design and appearance , harmful to biodiversity ,negative effects on health from untested 5 G technology , property prices .

Mrs Fiona Grace  104 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this tower being erected on this site. It will be out of keeping with thearchitecture of the Victorian houses around it. The planning office is usually strict about this so it isvery disappointing that such an eyesore might be inflicted on what is otherwise a very attractivearea. The existing structure is much smaller than the proposed tower.

The other grounds I have for objecting are my concerns about the effect on the health of my familyand those around us. This area is full of young children and also elderly people. There is a parkclose by which is very popular as well as an residential home and so feel strongly that this wouldadversely affect our neighbourhood. There is little research into the safety of 5G technology toreassure the people living close by. I would prefer this not to go ahead until more is known aboutthe potential dangers to those living close by.

Miss Katherine Sugg 87 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't feel that this is the right area for such an installation. It will be totally out ofkeeping with the area and a horrible 'blot on the landscape'. It will almost certainly effect the localenvironment and is not in any sense a a 'green' project and will harmful to biodiversity. I'm alsoconcerned about the potential health risks to local residents particularly children.

Mr Ben Hampson 52 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish object to this application on the grounds of both the visual impact and thepotential health implications of living so close to such antenna.

The installation will be visible from the rear windows and garden of my home, thus compromisingmy family's enjoyment of our surroundings.

Also, I don't believe enough is yet known about the potential health risks of the technology beinginstalled and as such I have genuine concerns over living just 45-50m in a straight line from theantenna.

Dr Peter Allen 1 CHURCH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We think telecommuting is the future of working and will help counteract increasing carsof the road and we fully support making sure our neighbourhood is up to date on new advancedtechnology. We also ask that actual scientific evidence is considered about any "harmful" effectsto biodiversity and health.

Ms Rebecca Thurgur 67 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to this application on the grounds that it would have a significantnegative visualimpact on the area. Due to the residential nature of the surrounding streets, and the relativelydense terraced housing and narrow streets, this will impact on very many residents.

From the existingdiagrams it seems that the existing mast is approx 4m high. The proposed plans clearly show theimpact of the proposed tower at 10m! This is considerably (and in our opinion unacceptably)higherthan the surrounding properties. As such it will have a hugely unappealing visual impact, which istotally out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.Although the buildings themselves are industrial garages, they fitreasonably well currently into the surrounding area because they are broadly proportional in heightand width. The 10m mast would totally shift that.

We are also hugely concerned that the tower will have a negative impact on biodiversity in thearea, as not only has 5G been shown to affect key pollinators but we are aware of trees being cutdown in other areas that have 5G in order allow better coverage of the wavelengths.

I hope that environmental health will have considered the potentialhealth / noise impacts associated with the particular technology. But we request that planningofficers refuse permission because of the visual impact of a 10m mast in this area.

Mr Jon Baker 62 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed 10m towers would be unsightly, they would overshadow all the propertiessurrounding them and they would be visible from a considerable distance as they would besignificantly higher than any buildings in the area. They would be completely out of character forthe area, their presence would impact the quality of life of local residents and visitors alike, andthey would damage house prices throughout the wider area.

There is substantial evidence to indicate that 5G carries potential health risks, and given the highpopulation density in the area these could affect a significant number of people, especially theyoung and the elderly. 5G is also known to kill pollinators, and the towers would impact both thelocal area and the wider environment at a time when these species are in decline.

Cities in Europe, America and elsewhere have recognised the potential risks of 5G and haverestricted the installation of towers in populated areas, and I urge Bristol City Council to declinethis planning application.

Miss Laura Dickason 17 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed 10 meter tower at 14 Elm Road.

My property backs directly onto Elm Road Garages and therefore such a construction will be veryvisible from my house, creating a significant blot on the landscape and being totally out of keepingthe local area. The surrounded streets are mainly two storey Victorian properties and a 10 metertower will look completely out of character and unsightly. It will no doubt have a negative affectedon all our house prices.

My family have lived in this house for almost 100 years and I have invested significant amount ofmoney and effort to be able to retain the house within the family. I would love this to be my longterm home in which I could raise a family of my own. However, I am extremely concerned aboutthe health and environmental impact that 5G technology (that the tower is being built to support)will have on the local residents. This is hugely contested technology whose rollout has been eitherstopped or slowed in many countries due to concerns about its impact on our heath andenvironment. The area is densely populated by families and is situated by Horfield Common localpark, which also attracts many visitors and young families.

I hope the council takes into account the many objections and concerns from local residents withregards to the impact of such a proposal on the physical appearance of the area, the financialimpact on our properties, and most importantly the heath impacts from such proposed technologyon local residents.

Ms Charmian Howard 98 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The construction of a tower of this height (10m) and design would be completely out ofkeeping with the Victorian terraced properties in the area, and I feel would be a blight on thelandscape. It is potentially also harmful to plants and animals, thereby exacerbating the impact ofclimate change on the environment, not to mention the potential harmful effects on humans whichhave been widely documented - in particular in an area where there are many families with youngchildren.

Mr Jake Reeves 26,MAPLE RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed installation of a 10 m telecommunications tower on topof Elm Road garages which I believe severely impacts on visual and residential amenity for thefollowing reasons:Amenity, Design and appearance. This would be totally out of character in a densely populatedresidential area of predominantly Victorian properties. The proposed 10 m + (17 m + from groundlevel) tower would be extremely unsightly and significantly higher than any buildings or structuresin the area (including the current apparatus which is just 3 m in height). 17 + metres is a hugelysignificant height, a structure of this height would be intrusive, invasive and overshadow gardensand homes (our garden and home included) in addition to impairing and blocking our views andsunlight (this will be the same for many neighbours and local residents). Although the planningapplication states that 'surrounding land uses are a mixture of business and residential' theimmediate area is almost exclusively residential except for the few garage units directly belowwhich are just two storeys (same height as all the surrounding houses). Can be viewed from thecommon an area enjoyed by thousands.

Harmful to Biodiversity - 5G wavelength is also known to be particularly damaging to insectsincluding pollinators, so the tower would impact the local area and the wider environment in thisway at a time when affected species are in decline.

Health - although I understand this may not be taken in to consideration I would sincerely hopethat the council have fully considered the potential health impacts associated with this technology.I raise this point as cities in Europe, America and elsewhere have recognised the potential risks of5G and have restricted or halted the roll out and installation of towers in densely populated

residential areas such as this. Being as one of the reasons for the height in the planningapplication literature is given as 'Furthermore, the higher spec antennas have a wider safetyexclusion zone which necessitates elevating the antennas higher than the existing to ensure thatsurrounding public areas and buildings are not in the zone' it is obvious there is a potential healthrisk. If this application is granted and there are later shown to be negative health impacts forresidents as a result the council will be culpable and I for one would look to hold them responsible.

Property Values - Value of local properties including my own will be detrimentally affected. Theseare mostly family homes people have invested in to live in. Just like no one wants to live under andelectricity pylon, people will not wish to live under a 5G mast.

I believe the proposed installation at this site this will cause significantly more harm than benefit forthe local community particularly those nearest to it and I strongly object and sincerely hopeplanning consent for it will be rejected.

Mr Jake Reeves 26,MAPLE RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed installation of a 10 m telecommunications tower on topof Elm Road garages which I believe severely impacts on visual and residential amenity for thefollowing reasons:Amenity, Design and appearance. This would be totally out of character in a densely populatedresidential area of predominantly Victorian properties. The proposed 10 m + (17 m + from groundlevel) tower would be extremely unsightly and significantly higher than any buildings or structuresin the area (including the current apparatus which is just 3 m in height). 17 + metres is a hugelysignificant height, a structure of this height would be intrusive, invasive and overshadow gardensand homes (our garden and home included) in addition to impairing and blocking our views andsunlight (this will be the same for many neighbours and local residents). Although the planningapplication states that 'surrounding land uses are a mixture of business and residential' theimmediate area is almost exclusively residential except for the few garage units directly belowwhich are just two storeys (same height as all the surrounding houses). Can be viewed from thecommon an area enjoyed by thousands.

Harmful to Biodiversity - 5G wavelength is also known to be particularly damaging to insectsincluding pollinators, so the tower would impact the local area and the wider environment in thisway at a time when affected species are in decline.

Health - although I understand this may not be taken in to consideration I would sincerely hopethat the council have fully considered the potential health impacts associated with this technology.I raise this point as cities in Europe, America and elsewhere have recognised the potential risks of5G and have restricted or halted the roll out and installation of towers in densely populated

residential areas such as this. Being as one of the reasons for the height in the planningapplication literature is given as 'Furthermore, the higher spec antennas have a wider safetyexclusion zone which necessitates elevating the antennas higher than the existing to ensure thatsurrounding public areas and buildings are not in the zone' it is obvious there is a potential healthrisk. If this application is granted and there are later shown to be negative health impacts forresidents as a result the council will be culpable and I for one would look to hold them responsible.

Property Values - Value of local properties including my own will be detrimentally affected. Theseare mostly family homes people have invested in to live in. Just like no one wants to live under andelectricity pylon, people will not wish to live under a 5G mast.

I believe the proposed installation at this site this will cause significantly more harm than benefit forthe local community particularly those nearest to it and I strongly object and sincerely hopeplanning consent for it will be rejected.

Miss Lucy Trasler- Willson 26,MAPLE RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed installation of a 10 m telecommunications tower on topof Elm Road garages which I believe severely impacts on visual and residential amenity for thefollowing reasons:Amenity, Design and appearance. This would be totally out of character in a densely populatedresidential area of predominantly Victorian properties. The proposed 10 m + (17 m + from groundlevel) tower would be extremely unsightly and significantly higher than any buildings or structuresin the area (including the current apparatus which is just 3 m in height). 17 + metres is a hugelysignificant height, a structure of this height would be intrusive, invasive and overshadow gardensand homes (our garden and home included) in addition to impairing and blocking our views andsunlight (this will be the same for many neighbours and local residents). Although the planningapplication states that 'surrounding land uses are a mixture of business and residential' theimmediate area is almost exclusively residential except for the few garage units directly belowwhich are just two storeys (same height as all the surrounding houses). Can be viewed from thecommon an area enjoyed by thousands.

Harmful to Biodiversity - 5G wavelength is also known to be particularly damaging to insectsincluding pollinators, so the tower would impact the local area and the wider environment in thisway at a time when affected species are in decline.

Health - although I understand this may not be taken in to consideration I would sincerely hopethat the council have fully considered the potential health impacts associated with this technology.I raise this point as cities in Europe, America and elsewhere have recognised the potential risks of5G and have restricted or halted the roll out and installation of towers in densely populated

residential areas such as this. Being as one of the reasons for the height in the planningapplication literature is given as 'Furthermore, the higher spec antennas have a wider safetyexclusion zone which necessitates elevating the antennas higher than the existing to ensure thatsurrounding public areas and buildings are not in the zone' it is obvious there is a potential healthrisk. If this application is granted and there are later shown to be negative health impacts forresidents as a result the council will be culpable and I for one would look to hold them responsible.

Property Values - Value of local properties including my own will be detrimentally affected. Theseare mostly family homes people have invested in to live in. Just like no one wants to live under andelectricity pylon, people will not wish to live under a 5G mast.

I believe the proposed installation at this site this will cause significantly more harm than benefit forthe local community particularly those nearest to it and I strongly object and sincerely hopeplanning consent for it will be rejected.

Mr Davyd Farrell CROSS COTTAGE ABBEYCWMHIR LLANDRINDOD WELLS   OBJECT

I object to this planning proposal on the grounds that first of all its out of keeping withthe surrounding area and will be an eyesore.It will devalue my sisters property.I also have serious concerns about the safety of this untested technology. I know the Governmenthas given approval but I also know that there are many credible scientists and knowledgablepeople who are saying that this 5G technology is potentially very detrimental to all humans andnature.It hasn't been properly tested and I worry about the safety of my nice and nephew who are bothunder 6 years old.

Mrs Susannah Owen 20 GREAT BROCKERIDGE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Having lived on oak road, I think such a high and intrusive structure in totally unsuitablein such a densely populated area comprising predominantly of young family housing. The currentmasts are high enough and visible enough for the local population, and now a 10 metre high toweris being suggested which is disproportionate to the small houses surrounding it.

Mrs Leigh Thomas 7 ELM ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Road.

As this is a densely populated residential area, this tower will be an eyesore to all who live closeby and visually will be out of place with the Victorian architecture/character of the neighbourhoodand will bring down the value of our homes.

We are very concerned as a young family about the health effects that 5G will have on us and allof our neighbours as well as the effects it will have on biodiversity in this area.

We urge the council to reject this planning application.

Mr Owen Thomas 7 ELM ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We strongly object to the proposed construction of the 10m high 5G tower on Elm Road.

As this is a densely populated residential area, this tower will be an eyesore to all who live closeby and visually will be out of place with the Victorian architecture/character of the neighbourhoodand will bring down the value of our homes.

We are very concerned about the health effects that 5G will have on us and all of our neighbours,as well as the effects it will have on biodiversity in the area.

We urge the council to reject this planning application.

Miss Rosie Dixon 13 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

My partner and I both object to the proposed development of a 10-metre tower on ElmRoad on the following grounds:

- it would be an eyesore- this type of development belongs in an industrial area, not a residential area- Huawei and the Chinese Government's involvement with 5G- health fears, eg insufficient research has been compiled to assess the impacts on residents

Mr Dougal Cram 4 ROZEL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the installation of the proposed new tower. It will be an eyesore andcompletely not appropriate for the local residential area. Additionally there are questions regardingthe potential health risks of 5G technology.

Miss Kate Clarke 56 MAPLE RD, BISHOPSTON BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't feel there is sufficient information available on the effects of 5g on people'shealth. I don't believe it is right or necessary to have it so close to such a built up area where a lotof young families live. The long term effects are not known but initial studies seem to suggest it isharmful. How can people object effectively when they are not given this information?

Mr Bob Firmin 3 MAPLE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

We would like clarification as to why we were not informed of the proposeddevelopment, despite being within very close proximity to the site. From the list online, the housesimmediately opposite to us were directly notified; why not us?

We object to the proposed planning application on the following grounds:

1. The planning application itself is cryptic; this is not an application for a 10m high mast aboveground, it is for a near-20m high mast once the building height is taken into consideration. Fromdocument "Maximum Configuration Elevation D", the height above ground to top of the tallestantennas is 18.7m; to the top of the main structure is 17.2m. We doubt that planning permissionwould be granted for a 17.2m lattice mast on the street, or a six-storey tower block in this area, sowhy should this development be permitted? As reference, the current transmitters are only 11mabove ground, and are much less intrusive due to their design.

2. The height of the proposed mast is therefore completely out of keeping with the local area,Victorian properties, and narrow streets. The top of the mast is 2.5x the height of the neighbouringdwellings (ridge height of 7m as shown on the plans), and nearly 3x the height of the building it willbe attached to ("main roof level" 6.6m as shown on the plans). This will tower over all theneighbouring properties, and be visible from many areas nearby, including Horfield Common.

3. Please can you explain how this is compatible with Policy DM36 Telecommunications, which asquoted in the supplementary information states "Proposals for new or upgradedtelecommunications equipment and installations will be permitted provided that: i. The

telecommunications equipment and installation would respect the character and appearance of thearea and would not be harmful to visual amenity by reason of its siting and design;" The fourcriteria in this policy are linked with the word "and"; this suggests that all four have to be met, notjust criteria iii as bolded in the document. Can you confirm this is the case.

4. The photos submitted in the landscape and visual impacts section of the supplementaryinformation do not realistically portray the proposed development. The small black arrow, or theexisting transmitters where visible, are significantly lower in height and of smaller width than theproposed mast (near 4m effective diameter at antenna level). An accurate portrayal of the masthas likely not been included due to the gross nature of its appearance. Please can these accuratevisual representations be provided.

5. The supplementary information also states that the installation "would be visible to commutersfor a short period of time" (page 11, para 3). Does this imply that due to its large size the mast willbe visible from Gloucester Road, not just the "area that immediately surrounds the site"? Andnever mind commuters, what about the impacts on the local residents who would be impactedevery day?

5G infrastructure does not need to be installed at this height; for instance mobile networks areclamouring for access to local authority lampposts across the UK to install their transmitters on. Ifrefused, as we strongly feel this application should be, it will likely be followed immediately by onefor lower height antennae that would be nowhere near as intrusive. The mast does not have to bethis height.

Mr Tim Malnick 65 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application on the basis that it would make a significant negative visualimpact on the area which due to the residential nature of the surrounding streets, and the relativelydense terraced housing and narrow streets will impact on very many residents. From the existingdiagrams it seems that the existing mast is approx 4m high. The proposed plans clearly show theimpact of the proposed tower at 10m! This is higher than the total height of the building, higherthan the surrounding properties. As such it will create a significant and hugely unappealing visualimpact totally out of character. Although the buildings themselves are industrial garages, they fitreasonably well currently into the surrounding area because they are broadly proportional in heightand width. The 10m mast would totally shift that. I assume that environmental health etc willnecessarily have considered any health / noise impacts associated with the particular technology.But I request planning officers refuse permission because of the visual impact of a 10m mast inthis area.

Mrs Philippa Lausen 4 STAPLEGROVE MANOR MANOR ROAD TAUNTON   OBJECT

I am writing to register my strong objection to the above application to install a 10m hightower to house 10 cabinets for the new 5G technology. Although I live in Taunton, I visit my littlegranddaughter on a weekly basis and know the area well.The height of this tower is totally out of keeping in a residential area, of two storey buildings. It willbe detrimental to the character of the area and will ruin the appearance of these roads whichconsist of Victorian and Edwardian houses.Furthermore, there are many concerns about the health risks of this technology, with scientistsaround the world questioning its safety. Many communities have already rejected it. Additionalhealth risks are likely as many mini cell towers will also be required all along the roads. This is adensely populated area and is in no way suitable for this installation.Finally the impact on our biodiversity will be significant, at a time when there is already hugeconcern about decreasing pollinator numbers.Please reject this proposal if you have any care for the local residents and for the environment.

Mrs Aimee Moffatt 7 ASH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Both my husband and I strongly object to the proposed 10 meter tower at 14 Elm Road.It will be a significant blot on the landscape and totally out of keeping the local area. Thesurrounded streets are mainly two storey Victorian properties and a 10 meter tower will lookhorrendously out of character and unsightly. It will no doubt have a negative affected on all ourhouse prices.

Having two children I also am extremely concerned about the health and environmental impactthat 5G technology (that the tower is being built to support), will have on the local residents. Thearea is densely populated by families and is situated by a local park, which also attracts additionalvisitors.

5G is a hugely contested technology whose roll out has already been stopped or slowed by othercountries due to concerns. Surely this should be a huge consideration when considering thisapplication.

Mr David Lausen 4 STAPLEGROVE MANOR MANOR ROAD TAUNTON   OBJECT

I know the area well, as my daughter and her family live close by, and I believe theinstallation would be visually out of keeping for the area, particularly for the skyline. I am alsoconcerned about health implications for those who would be unfortunate enough to live very closeby, and the harm to biodiversity.

Mr Robin Allender 31 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

My mother and I live at this address and feel that the development of these towerswould be an eyesore, totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood. 10 metres is a significantheight and would clearly affect the view from our garden: blocking sunlight, and adding to anatmosphere of feeling hemmed in and of losing privacy as more and more building work goes uparound us.

On top of this we both feel that the health risks of the towers has not been properly investigatedand we do not feel assured that they are safe. There are many young families in this area and theywill have similar concerns.

Finally, we have been told that the value of properties in close proximity to towers such as thesecould be negatively affected. This is a source of great anxiety and concern for me and my family.

Ms K Owen-Jones 71 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a resident of Oak Road living directly opposite the building on which this proposed structure isto be located, I object to the planning application.

The new structure is significantly larger, higher and closer to the front of the building than theequipment that is already in place. As such it will directly overshadow my house and those ofneighbours, and will severely affect both the light into my house and the outlook from all facingwindows .

The development will be much more visible from all the streets in the surrounding area, as well asfrom Horfield Common. the design is large and imposing and is totally out of keeping with otherbuildings in the small streets of this Victorian residential neighbourhood.

The proposal is therefore 'harmful to visual amenity' of the area.

In addition I am objecting because of the potential environmental and health impacts of 5Gtechnology. There is evidence of negative effects on biodiversity and habitats as well as on peopleliving close to installations, which are as yet unanswered. Therefore the proximity of thisdevelopment is of concern.

The application does not appear to recognise fully the degree to which this development willimpact on the neighbourhood and how it the will devalue the houses in nearby streets.

Ms Rachel Aspinwall 24 MAPLE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I want to strongly object to the proposed development of the 10m telecommunicationstower on top of Elm Road garages on the following grounds;

Amenity, design and appearance of the development -the tower will do significant damage to the overall character and enjoyment of this quiet residentialtwo story Victorian area. It will be industrial in look and nature, be substantially bigger and moreimposing than the current root top antennae, rising as it will at 10m on top of a 7m metre highbuilding.

As such it will be entirely responsible for completely altering the tranquil and residential feel of allthe surrounding homes on the roads with direct visual access - from front and back - whose qualityof life will radically alter on a daily basis as a result of this eyesore, as well as changing thecharacter of the whole neighbourhood for anyone passing by, visiting, using the local park orcommuting.

The area around the proposed new mast is residential on all sides, there is no feel of a mixedbusiness and residential area as suggested by the supplementary information, the feel is of aresidential area, with the Elm road garage complex the only building of a different character -although it is in itself no higher than the surrounding houses.

The area is one where a lovely, local park with open land and trees, victorian homes and the inter-relationship between them all, constitute its character. What would constitute as a 17mtelecommunications mast would tower over this neighbourhood and damage these qualities

irrevocably.

The antennae that are already there are low level, so trying to characterise this proposal as 'anexisting piece of telecommunications infrastructure being upgraded' or saying that ' the presenceof radio equipment has been a 'long-term feature of the local landscape' and that 'the upgradeproposes a replacement structure that is of similar form to the existing' is entirely misleading.There is nothing in the 'local landscape' of this nature and the form will be very different - it wouldbe a 10m high tower structure being erected on top a building where currently there is none.

The supplementary information stating that 'the equipment would be viewed in the context of thehost building which is in commercial use and has a functional appearance. ...and is not typicallyconsidered to have architectural distinction' is also misleading.

The 'host building' is a handsome building, which although not Victorian in nature fits well into itssetting, being of similar height and dimensions to surrounding houses. Describing it only as'functional and in commercial use with no architectural distinction' completely misrepresents itstrue qualities which, whilst they may not be considered to be of architectural 'distinction' to experts,still add enormously to the local character and nature of the neighbourhood. A huge mast on top ofthis building would totally ruin its look and feel.

The proposal also suggests that 'the replacement structure should continue to integrate into itssetting'. Taking into consideration all that has been said above and looking at the proposed plansthis is patently untrue. The 'new' structure will in no way integrate into its setting. Quite simply thisis no setting for such a structure, it will be a highly visible out of character structure and no amountof misleading supplementary information can alter that fact.

As a homeowner of one of the properties on Maple Road that will be directly affected, the proposalstates the following - 'the installation would also be visible in direct views from the upper-windowsof a small number of properties on Maple Road. There are views of the existing apparatus fromthese properties and it is considered that owing to the separation distance between the site andthe properties, the proposal would result in a moderate degree of visual change.' Again this is amisrepresentation. The substantial height of this new structure would mean I have full view of anugly telecommunications mast from my study window where currently I have none. The developermay believe separation distances will mitigate any impact but I strongly disagree. The change willsubstantially alter the character of the neighbourhood that I look out over on a daily basis from myhome study.

The proposal goes no way towards balancing the protection of the appearance of the surroundingarea, and the amenity of local residents and seems to be suggesting that all the negative impact ofthe loss of our neighbourhood character with an ugly mast that will impact quality of life, not tomention property prices [which might not matter to the council but does to me!] will all be worth itbecause our phones will be able to talk to our fridges!

There is also no mention anywhere of what are now well publicised concerns over the impact thata 5G roll out may have on human and environmental health, concerns that are significant enoughfor other cities and towns around the world, including Brussels, Geneva, Florence and the XIIMunicipality of Rome to call a halt to 5G.

In the States US Senators and professors are warning against the untested technology andhundreds of scientists, doctors and leaders worldwide are appealing urgently for an immediatecease to the use of 5G's high frequency microwave radiation.

The US group Physicians for Safe Technology state 'there is convincing emerging scientificevidence causing great concern for the environment, with harm to mammals, insects and bacteria... 5G technology will also consume significant amounts of energy, contrary to global climategoals.'

The UK National Planning Policy Framework instructs that; 'Local planning authorities mustdetermine applications [for updated telecommunications infrastructure] on planning grounds only.They should not ... question the need for an electronic communications system, or set healthsafeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure'.

As this directive clearly renders null and void any objections raised around the harm that 5G isbeing linked to cause in humans, insects - in particular pollinators - and habitats, I cannot objecton those terms, but want it noted that the current international commission guidelines that councilsare being asked to operate within, are seen by many experts as not fit for purpose - mostpertinently 4G technology has been tested by the military and by international scientists with anabundance of studies showing broad harm to animals, humans, plants, insects and bacteria, 5Gtechnology has been studied by some in the military showing broad harm and some newer studiesare showing damage to insects, tissue burns and overheating with streaming of data, but therehas been no safety testing of 5G before it is rolled out.

So on top of protesting the building of this tower in our neighbourhood, I also request that BristolCity Council invoke the precautionary principle and pause the rollout of this as yet untestedtechnology and if it does not, that should any resident in our neighbourhood [or any citizen inBristol] incur any damage to health, or if there is any destruction to habitats and pollinators as aresult, that the council would be complicit.

Miss kerry maycock 32 MAPLE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

after reading proposal , size height will be aesthetically ugly , imposing to neighbors. ihave concerns over its safety to local residents considering scientific studies relating to theunknow health concerns/ risks. Kerry Maycock

Ms Georgia Bladon 88 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This addition will be harmful to visual amenity and does not respect the character andappearance of the area. Though outside the remit of an objection I am also concerned about thehealth implications of 5G.

Mrs Claire Eatock 61 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application due to the intended height of the mast. This is a very built uparea, and it will be incredibly imposing. It will block views from our properties, and will be aneyesore. It will also be completely out of character and has the potential impact of reducing thevalue of our properties.

Mrs Rebecca Kay 29 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

On behalf of myself and my family I am writing to strongly object to this proposal.

The erection of the proposed tower is a huge concern for us as the back of our house (andtherefore 2 of our bedrooms) look directly out onto the Elm Road Garages. It would be a terribleeyesore and would considerably alter the view from our house.

Furthermore, the proposal is clearly not in keeping with the area, which is residential andpredominantly Victorian in style. This is an area highly populated with young families, ourselvesincluded, and given its proximity to Horfield Common it attracts additional families to the area too.This would be a real blot on the landscape.

In addition to these concerns, I am hugely troubled at the prospect of having the new 5gtechnology on our doorstep. Whilst I understand that this will not be taken into consideration as anobjection, I do wish to express my concern as a mother of two young children about the possiblehealth implications this may have for our family and the environmental impact too.

Finally, I understand that the erection of the tower is likely to decrease the value of our home,which we have invested in as our family home in the area which we love.

I very much hope that our objection and those voiced by our neighbours and other parties will leadto the rejection of this proposal.

Mr Theo Davies 89 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am strongly against the build of the 5G 10m tower block on Elm road.5G has been proven to be a dangerous excessive use of power and lots of doctors and scientistsacross the world have done research to proven this in many ways.I think the installation of a unit such as this so close to family with young kids is a very horriblethought.So I strongly disagree with is going up a d so does my hole house hold. Anisha Patel and pierre

Ms Katie Knight 13 MAPLE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Many thanks to other residents in my community who have brought this PlanningApplication to my attention in time for me to lodge my objection. I have a number of significantconcerns regarding this Application.

Consultation process - Given that I live within direct view of the existing masts and little more than50m distance from the site I am extremely unhappy and confused as to why I did NOT receive aletter from the Council. I see that a 'Neighbourhood Notification List' is posted online with thisPlanning Application and would like to understand why it was not considered necessary for me toreceive notification of this Application which has the potential for significant personal impact andfor other of my neighbours in the immediate vicinity, who were also not included on the'Neighbourhood Notification List'?! Having been notified by another neighbour last night I havechecked on-street and see now that there is ONLY 1 sign posted on Maple Road; on the corner ofMaple Road/Elm Road. This is directly opposite my property but even I hadn't noticed it as thislamp column is largely obscured by vegetation! It would seem to me to be more transparent if theNotice had been posted on a number of lamp columns, or at least on a more conspicuous lampcolumn!

Transparency - I am concerned that the Application does not make it clear exactly what thisupgrade to existing infrastructure entails? The outline proposal cites replacement and upgrade ofthe existing apparatus. However, on reading the Supplementary Information posted online itseems to indicate that this will be one of the 5G sites, which I understand is funded for trial acrossBristol. Is this a 5G trial mini-cell site? If so, then I would challenge again the lack of widespreadpublic consultation and transparency of the Application; particularly as this is a predominantly

densely populated residential area.

Environmental and health implications - I fully appreciate that living in a city, the infrastructurerequired for commercial and public amenity can sometimes come at a cost on visual impact. Forexample, I am fully accepting of the new high mast lighting at the cricket ground, as this is anamenity that brings much enjoyment to many and enables us to welcome many visitors to our city.However, I do object to a 10m high tower in a densely populated residential area, as it willundoubtedly be unsightly and out of place and moreover concerns me given the potential impactof 5G, and associated increased exposure to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation, on the health andwellbeing of myself and my neighbours.

Miss Laura Panzica 11 ELM ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I STRONGLY object on the following grounds:

1. Being an elm road resident, the height of this development would mean it would overshadow myproperty and be an eyesore to the area.

2. I object to the appearance and design of the development which is totally out of character withthe area in terms of both the huge height and the fact it is a residential family area Victorian.

3. Both of these reasons in turn would lower the value of my property (I am aware you do notconsider this a valid objection but I do). The potential health risks of 5G would add further propertydevaluation.

4. Further to this, a 5G mast with has no place in a residential and young family area. Should anychild or resident incur any future health complications as a result, the council would be complicit.

Dr David Connor 28 ST LEONARDS ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this hideous abomination of the skyline and the accompanying health hazardsof yet more electromagnetic waves bombarding our brains. This would never have even got on thedrawing board in Clifton.

Mr Bryn Goodhead 57 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed development is significantly larger than the existing structures andtherefor will increase the overshadowing of neighbouring properties. It is not within the aesthetic ofthe local area, which principally consists of Victorian terraces. The proposed installation would bedominating of the skyline.

Additionally whilst the body of knowledge regarding the effects of the related non-ionising radiationis still small due to the realtively new nature of the 5G network, the health effects of such aninstallation cannot thus be fully known at the current time. However it is noted that several othercities have paused the rollout of this for additional study, which would imply that the body ofevidence against the technology is not sufficient to be able to make a decision of the effects.

Mrs Patricia Fagg 24 LONGMEAD AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

It will be ugly, possibly dangerous and definitely unnecessary

Ms L Fisher 74 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the building of the tower because of the impact on local health andenvironment. The tower will significantly change the character of the area but more importantly,there is clear evidence that the technology that the health of humans and animals (includingpollinators!) can be negatively affected - most at risk are children and the elderly. Please helpprotect the people and biome of this area by blocking permission to the tower.

Ms Nicola Gissing 31 CHURCH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The tower will be way higher than surrounding buildings and will be an eyesore in aresidential area. It will also be seen from the common which is an area people enjoy as a greenspace. The tower is totally out of keeping with the skyline nearby and shouldn't be allowed.

Mr Tom Willson 73 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the construction of this mast due to the fact this will block out light andimpede my view of the natural sky. this will look very domineering and menacing on these smallroads and have a negative impact on the value of the properties in the vicinity. Also I object to thisbecause of the security issues currently being investigated relating to HUAWEI.

Mrs June Hoy 9 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am very concerned that this radio mast is in fact a 5 G wiifi and this mast is very highin comparison with the current masts. 5G is banned in most countries even America as they aresaying that the effects of this intense beam is unknown and in fact some reports have indicated itmay be cancerous. This is a residential area with several families with young children and I believethat this application should be stopped unless there is good evidence to support the beam wouldbe unharmful to newly born babies and others in the area. I am therefore objecting on the dangersto the neighbourhood.

Ms Sarah Dewey 22 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this installation on the following grounds:

The proposed equipment is not respectful of the character and appearance of this area which islargely composed of Victorian terraced houses used as homes.

It is greater than twice the height of the existing garage on which it would be sited and would beugly and loom over all neighbours, the workers in the garages, the people living in the studiosabove the garages and many others. I would be able to see it from the upper windows of the backof my house. Those with loft conversions would be even more greatly affected. Many of the houseare in multiple occupancy and may only have access to upstairs or loft rooms.

The siting and use of 5G telecom equipment (see page 6 of supplementary document of theplanning application) is of great concern to me and to large numbers of people worldwide. PHIRE-Physicians Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, cites evidence that Radio Frequenciesat 5G level proposed for the U.K. damages pollinators and human health and reports that cities inthe USA, Switzerland, Belgium and Italy are slowing or issuing resolutions to halt 5G and wirelesstowers being erected near homes.

Please do not let this application go through!

Mr Isaac Fiakkas 85 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the building of this tower. It will be even more of an eyesore than is alreadythere and is completely unnecessary. Do not Rob the Bristol sky line for monetary gain.

Mr Adam Tucker 3 DRUETTS CLOSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am concerned about the effect of this on the surrounding biodiversity and harmful tovisual amenity in the area due to its location and design.

Mr Johnny Harris 85 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This will be an eyesore and I'm concerned about the potential for radiation

Dr Sarah Spilsbury 96 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Leaving aside the potential risks to health posed by G5 installations, already identifiedby medical experts (I understand risks to the health of nearby residents are not considered to be ofrelevance to planning applications), I wish to object to the siting of this radio apparatus - which willbe less than 70 meters from my back garden on the grounds that a 10m tower is out of keepingthe surrounding 2-story buildings and will be an unsightly eyesore and, given adverse opinion on5G technology will devalue nearby residential properties. In addition our small gardens, where weattempt to cultivate habitats for pollinating insects and common garden birds, will be threatened -again a risk highlighted by scientists globally.

Mrs Rose Gunning  6 RADNOR ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am not happy that 5G is being rolled out without consultation . There is considerableopposition to these new communication towers and they are beginning to appear all over Bristol .Does this mean we should accept this latest installation without question . Has the council debatedthis issue at any great length? I politely ask that this objection should be considered until moreresearch has been done on the radiation affects on wild life and public health .

Mrs Gill Moore 55 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As can be seen from the drawings submitted, the height of the tower is far greater thananything else in an area which has generally retained it's original two-storey Victorian nature. Theinstallation would be totally out of place. Surely the applicant and planners can find a moresuitable location.

Added to this, there are potential health concerns associated with the installation of 5G. Until theseconcerns have been overcome it is clearly not a suitable proposal for a residential area.

Mr David Thompson 21 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We object to the building of the tower because of the impact on local health andenvironment. The tower will significantly change the character of the area but more importantly,there is clear evidence that this type of technology will impact on the health of humans andanimals, negatively.

The neighbourhoodThe area is made up of families and many elderly people.The families living in the area have young children and babies who will undoubtedly be impactedby the installation of this tower.

We ourselves, are an elderly couple who have lived in the area for 25 + years. We are veryconcerned that our health will deteriorate following the installation of the tower. It is a well knownfact that such emissions can cause all sorts of problems including cancer.

Furthermore, we take regular daycare of our grandchildren at our property - with the installation ofthis health hazard, we would seriously have to consider not being able to enjoy our grandchildrenvisiting us in our own home, because of the impact on their own health

Furthermore, we are concerned that the ugliness of such a tower along with the health hazardsthat come with it, will considerably lower the value of the houses in the surrounding areas eg.OakRoad, Maple Road, Elm Road etc.

The common

The tower will also be a health hazard to the public and their health.Many people, families, students and locals, from all walks of life, some of whom travel somedistance to get to it, enjoy the use of Horfield Common off Maple Road - they will be directly in theline of the emissions of such a dangerous tower and it is 'wrong' that they should have to succumbto such dangerous emissions.

Please take notice of our appeals and take responsibility to have this application refused!Thank you

Ms louise maingard 21 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We object to the building of the tower because of the impact on local health andenvironment. The tower will significantly change the character of the area but more importantly,there is clear evidence that this type of technology will impact on the health of humans andanimals, negatively.

The neighbourhoodThe area is made up of families and many elderly people.The families living in the area have young children and babies who will undoubtedly be impactedby the installation of this tower.

We ourselves, are an elderly couple who have lived in the area for 25 + years. We are veryconcerned that our health will deteriorate following the installation of the tower. It is a well knownfact that such emissions can cause all sorts of problems including cancer.

Furthermore, we take regular daycare of our grandchildren at our property - with the installation ofthis health hazard, we would seriously have to consider not being able to enjoy our grandchildrenvisiting us in our own home, because of the impact on their own health

Furthermore, we are concerned that the ugliness of such a tower along with the health hazardsthat come with it, will considerably lower the value of the houses in the surrounding areas eg.OakRoad, Maple Road, Elm Road etc.

The common

The tower will also be a health hazard to the public and their health.Many people, families, students and locals, from all walks of life, some of whom travel somedistance to get to it, enjoy the use of Horfield Common off Maple Road - they will be directly in theline of the emissions of such a dangerous tower and it is 'wrong' that they should have to succumbto such dangerous emissions.

Please take notice of our appeals and take responsibility to have this application refused!Thank you

Mr david thompson 21 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to object to the building of this tower for these specific reasons:This is not an industrial area. This is a 100% residential area of mainly families and elderlyresidents surrounding possibly 5/6 garages.The significance of the height of the proposed tower of 10 meters is totally out of character withthe Victorian style of houses and a visual eyesore to the whole area.The height of the current mast is unsightly enough!Anything larger than that will be a blot on the local landscape.

It will inevitably lead to house price reductions in the area. I don't see why any reasons why anyresidents and their properties should be penalised and have their property devalued as a result ofthis mast and their health potentially compromised.

I am concerned for my friend who lives in a flat in the building to which the mast is being attached.This is within a legitimate 20 metre health hazard distance of the mast. As there are stillunresolved evidence about the health hazards to this 5G system, I would imagine that peoplesleeping in the building directly under the mast could be exposed to regular doses of RFfrequency.

I don't understand why safety limits in the UK are set at a higher level than cities in Europe and theUS who are reviewing slowing down or even halting the installation of the 5G wireless towers nearhomes until the issues of 'health' are 100% clarified.

Many wonderful inventions ie. plastic, have been invented by man only to find out later that they

have serious harmful effects either on the environment or potentially on health, as in this case.

I feel that just as the environment needs to be protected for the future, so does the health ofourselves, and particularly our children and grandchildren. Once you have a problem of anymagnitude as with plastic, it is very difficult to find a solution.

Mr toby josham 11 MAPLE ROAD MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to this in the strongest possible terms. Firstly no letter was received andthe noted pinned to the lamp post makes no mention of 5G which makes this application lookdeceitful and dishonest.There are serious question over the health implications of 5G and this area has a large number offamily's with young children although I guess that's of little importance and this experiment willcontinue regardless.What might be of importance this the sheer scale of a 10 meter mast sitting on top of a building inthe heart of narrow Victorian terrace streets.It's completely out of proportion and will be a massive eyesore for the entire neighborhood and itssurroundings. The "trees" area is a highly sought after area and having lived here for 13 years Ican honestly that the area has a good feel . This mast will completely undo that. Just like no onewants to live under and electricity pylon, no one will want to live under a 5G mast. If this goesahead I would expect that people would wish to move out of the area and it will completely changefor the worst.

Mrs Susan Josham 11 MAPLE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Firstly, what a surprise and what a great concern to hear about this! How worrying andinteresting that this was not made more public to us.No letter was received through our door to notify us about this application which raises seriousquestions about the honesty and transparency of the process.Had I received a letter, this objection would have been placed the same day it arrived due tonature and importance of it.I have just been made aware of an A4 notification attached to a post, partially hidden by a bush.As if insignificant or invisible.

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms in respect of the questions ofPotential health risks to of 5G and all the credible available evidence of that. This is an area full offamilies with young children.

The environmental issues that could damage or kill pollinators. Upsetting a very delicate balancethat we need to preserve.

The shear scale of a 10m high tower/structure sitting on top of the building becoming an eyesore,for the benefit of no one other than the company installing it for their financial gain. What willBristol council gain from this, I wonder?

The fact that the information on the application doesn't refer to 5G means that this is underhandand sly. It covers up something that would be severely objected to by everyone effected if theyknew the full details.

So here I log with you my strong objection which I sincerely hope you will consider, and one whichI will continue to object to and fight, if this application goes through.I'm filled with great disappointment about your handling of this application.Susan Josham

Mr Oliver Mitchell 43 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Date - 20.06.19Name and address - Oliver Mitchell, 43 Oak Road, BS7 8RZReference - 19/02181/FAlternative Reference - PP-07831785Site address - Hutchison 3G Installation 2 - 14 Elm Road Bristol

To whom this may concern,

Me and my wife have lived on Oak Road for 5 years now and think of it as such a beautiful street.Not only do we have great neighbours, but all the buildings are like for like - nice victorian terracedhouses. Also all houses have the same height, which again adds to the character of the street.

However the site in dispute already sticks out on our road, as being ugly and not in keeping withthe rest of the houses. The 10m high roof-top tower will add to this and make the building stick outeven more so on our road.

I think it imperative that this application be denied, as it will impose on the surround streets. This isnot something a residential area should have. There's one thing having a working garage just offof Oak Road, but to add 10m on top of it, should not even be considered.

Kind regards,

Oliver Mitchell

Mrs Alexandra Lausen-Mitchell 43 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed structure is completely inappropriate for a residential road such as OakRoad. At a height of 10 metres it will overshadow the surrounding gardens and be an uglyeyesore. This will have a detrimental effect on property prices. I am also of the view that signal isabsolutely fine in our area and so there is no need for this proposal. I therefore strongly object.

Mr Chris Moss 14 CHURCH ROAD, HORFIELD, BRISTOL BS7 8SA   OBJECT

I would like to object to the installation of this 10m tower along with 5G radio apparatusthat will be installed on it. I have two reasons for my objection. The first reason is the existingtower and equipment is currently very unsightly but this tower will be significantly larger than thecurrent structure. The view from our rear bedroom window will be a 10m high communicationtower, that is completely unacceptable.

My second concern is based upon the equipment being manufactured by Huawei that has alreadybeen banned both in Australia and the USA. This equipment still hasn't been approved by the UKgovernment for use. In my option there hasn't been enough research into 5G networks and thelong term effects on health of people in the vicinity of towers like these.

Overall I hope the planning committee see sense and reject this proposal because of the reasons Ihave mentioned.

Mrs Sarah Parker 55 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the construction of this 10m tower on Elm Road because it will beunsightly and completely out of character with the surrounding properties in this residential area.

I live on an adjacent road (Oak Road) and this proposed tower will be directly visible from myhouse. It will not be a pleasant view because the proposed height of this tower is significantlyhigher than anything else nearby.

I am also concerned that the construction of such a tower in this location will have a significantnegative impact on the value of my property as potential buyers will quite rightly not want to havesuch a tower on their doorstep. In addition, the potential health risks of 5G may further deterpeople from wanting to purchase houses in this area. Given how vibrant and thriving this area ofGloucester Road is, it would be a real shame to destroy this by building this tower.

I am not against the 5G rollout in the UK, however I would urge you to reconsider the location ofthe required communications towers and build them in less densely populated areas where theimpact of the tower will be significantly less.

Mr Paul Hibbard 37 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the building of this tower on grounds that it is far too high and totallyinappropriate for a residential area such as this.Visually this construction will be a blot on the landscape and is likely to be significantly harmful tothe health of the residents in the area as well as the environment as a whole.

Mr Michael Baugh 64 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am concerned about the height and size of the proposal as it is much larger and moreintrusive than what is there currently.

Also, I understand that there are health concerns related to the introduction of 5G technology andthat several European cities have declined to accommodate this technology for health reasons.

Mrs Marie Sudwell 15 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed structure as it is unsuitable for a residential area of Victorianterraced streets. The existing structures on the roof of the garages are already unsightly and theproposed development will dominate the area. The negative health impact on the local residents,many young families with children, should also be considered. The communication tower shouldbe positioned in an area which has less impact on the local residents.

Miss Anna Farrell 66 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed tower to be situated in Elm Road will be an eyesore and totally out ofkeeping with the local architecture. It will cast shadows on the neighbouring houses and gardens,and be a looming presence for the surrounding areas. It will no doubt have an negative impact onhouse prices.For the reasons I wish to strongly raise my objections. Thank you

Mrs Clare George 67 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

A structure that is 10 meter tall will be very unsightly. It would be simply not keepingwith the houses and would reduce the value of the houses ... including ours.So we are not happy about it ... and we raise our objection.

Mr Puthenpurackal George 67 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

A structure that is 10 meter tall will be very unsightly. It would be simply not keepingwith the houses and would reduce the value of the houses ... including ours.So we are not happy about it ... and we raise our objection.

Mr Richard Jones 68 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed development is several times higher than the existing structure and willbe more than twice as tall as anything else in the vicinity. It will represent a significant eyesore tothe area and it will be visible from several nearby streets including the Gloucester Road.

The new telephone mast would directly overshadow our garden, which is approximately 10 metresaway, as well as the gardens of several other immediate neighbours. For residents on theopposite side of the road, it would dominate the view out of their upstairs windows.

The structure would be completely out of keeping with the Victorian residential area and therefore Iobject to this application.

Unknown   OBJECT

Ms Rhiannon Augenthaler 1 MARITIME COURT EXETER   OBJECT

5G rollouts have been frozen in Brussels, parts of Geneva, parts of Rome, parts ofthe US, and elsewhere due to safety concerns. Recently, councillors at Glastonburyhave begun action to ban 5G in the town.5G is largely untested technology. But higher frequency waves are more damaging thanlower frequency waves, and a body of existing research shows that millimetre waves asused with 5G cause damage on a biochemical level. 'Studies conducted on humansand animals showed structural alterations in the skin and internal organs,changes in blood and bone marrow composition, changes in enzymatic activityand nucleic metabolism. (Zalyubovskaya et al). A new study (Neufeld & Kuster, 2018)has shown that due to the heating effect of 5G waves, the exposures 'tolerated by theICNIRP guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even shortexposures.'- Children and babies absorb up to 60% more microwave radiation than adults.- Mobile phone radiation was classified a class 2B 'possible carcinogen' by the WHO in2011, but researchers have called for the classification to be upgraded to 'probablecarcinogen' (Group 2A) or 'carcinogenic to humans' (Group 1).- Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry Dr Martin Pall warns that side-effects may includelowered fertility, neurological damage, cell apoptosis, DNA damage, free radicaldamage, hormonal effects, excessive intracellular calcium, and cancer.- The US group Physicians for Safe Technology state that 'there is convincing emergingscientific evidence causing great concern for the environment, with harm to mammals,insects and bacteria...5G technology will also consume significant amounts of energy,contrary to global climate goals.'

Miss Julia Flynn 77 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I was shocked to see this proposal to add a TEN METRE TALL installation on top of thebuildings in Elm Road. This is a lovely area of Victorian streets which the applicant wishes to blightwith this monstrosity. Please, planning department, spare a thought for those of us whose firstview in the morning upon opening our curtains will be an unnecessary radio tower atop thegarages. I already have to see the current aerials, which are not exactly pretty, but to putsomething twice the size in their place would be horrific.

Please, if you have to have such things, put them somewhere discrete so as not to spoil the nearlandscape.

Many thanks

Julia

Mr David Herman-Morley 94 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

A 10 meter tower will not only dominate the skyline from my garden and that of myneighbours, but will also lead to radiation pollution of which the health results unknown. Themobile phone signal throughout north Bristol is absolutely fine already and these ridiculous plansare completely superfluous to requirement. Please have the decency to decline what will ultimatelybe only a horrible eyesore to myself and my fellow neighbours.

Mr Robert Cousins 9 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am fully supportive of new technologies and need for good telecommunications but theheight of this tower is frankly completely out of proportion with the surrounding area and higherthan the building it resides on let alone surrounding residential houses. In an area surrounded onall sides by much smaller 2 story residential housing then this isn't acceptable and in keeping withthe locality and architecture. If the antennas really need to be on this high then Three need toconsider a different location.

Dr Lauren Goodhead 57 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The height of this proposed structure is unacceptable for a residential neighbourhoodand is totally not in keeping with a Victorian terrace street. The current structures are set backfrom the road but the new structures will be both taller and further towards the front of the buildingmaking it unsightly for the street. The new structures won't just affect residents on Oak Road, buton surrounding streets also due to their height.