Hundreds of objections to plans for CCTV towers on disputed green space

Hundreds of people are objecting amended plans to install CCTV towers on a long disputed green space.

We Love Stoke Lodge (WLSL) and Bristol Tree Forum (BTF) are among councillors, legal professionals, neighbours and others who have submitted objections to Bristol City Council against Cotham School’s new application to install towers on Stoke Lodge.

Despite the school’s claims that the application provides new evidence to justify their proposals, many opponents say it is “very similar” to the plan refused by the planning inspectorate in January on grounds of “heritage harm, impact on protected trees and harm to privacy”.

The local community celebrated in 2024 when footpaths crossing Stoke Lodge were formally recognised by Bristol City Council – photo: We Love Stoke Lodge

“A proper assessment of heritage issues is critical, given the counterfactual claims being made by Cotham School,” a spokesperson from WLSL said. “It is concerning that the school and its consultants continue to deny publicly documented historical facts in pursuit of their surveillance goals.”

The WLSL spokesperson referenced a 12-page document from Josef Cannon, king’s counsel at Cornerstone Chambers, objecting the plans and advising against relying on the council’s 2018 legal opinion due to “factual errors”. In his analysis, Cannon also advises the council to review “the extent of the curtilage of Stoke Lodge in light of a recent court of appeal decision”.

In their original application and the new application submitted in early April, the school have said the green space surrounding the Grade-II listed Stoke Lodge building has “no meaningful historic relationship with the asset”.

In April, councillors voted against forcing Cotham School to open gates of the controversial fence on the green space – photo: Martin Booth

Responding on behalf of WLSL, South West-based consultancy firm Planning Ventures said the land was a non-designated heritage asset and the inspector’s decision letter from January stated “significant harm” would be caused to the designated and non-designated heritage assets from the height and regular positioning of the then proposed CCTV poles.

They also raised concerns about the “harmful impact” on visual amenity, environment and residential privacy, among other reasons for objection.

Several residents in the area also raised privacy concerns due to installing of the CCTV cameras.

“The overall crime rate in Stoke Bishop is 76.6 per 1,000 residents, which is significantly lower than the Bristol average of 146.8 per 1,000 residents. So why does a low crime residential area need this much surveillance for the benefit of a school which is rarely at the site?”one neighbour said in their objections.

Fake poo bags were discovered at the green space in early April 2025 – photo: We Love Stoke Lodge

Among received objections are comments from councillors for Stoke Bishop John Goulandris and Henry Michallat, who was also a former lord mayor.

Goulandris, who is also the chair of the Public Rights of Way & Greens Committee said the school’s new application “fails to take into account” its impact on the four public rights of way across the application site, which have been approved by the council.

He added that the new application “fails to address in any meaningful manner” the privacy concerns raised in the January refusal, calling changes in the new plans “merely cosmetic”.

“One of the poles is reduced in height from 6 metres to 5 metres, but this application also shows the cameras on top of the poles, adding over half a metre to the height of each pole, thus making the poles even more visible and harmful to the heritage assets,” he explained. “The mass and bulk of the poles are further augmented by privacy screens, whose effectiveness is doubtful with no clear evidence as to how they will be used effectively to maintain privacy of neighbours.”

In a rebuttal sent to the council on behalf of Cotham School, property advice company Rapleys said they wanted to clarify “factually incorrect assertions” and address objections received, including claims of the new proposal not being “materially different”.

The letter read: “A central theme of many objections is that the current proposal is “not materially different” from the refused scheme. Respectfully, this is not the case. The revised application has been prepared specifically in response to the inspector’s findings.

This includes an amended site layout (including the removal of one of the proposed poles), a comprehensive design review, testing of alternative configurations, a full arboriculture assessment, a dual-layer privacy strategy and an evidence base, including safeguarding justification and crime data.”

Rapleys added that the updated heritage assessment concluded there was “no harm” to the setting of the listed building and even if this was not agreed the level of harm was “certainly reduced to a level of less than substantial harm”.

Bristol24/7 has contacted Cotham School for an additional comment on the objections received to their plans.

Main photo: We Love Stoke Lodge

Read next: 

• Cotham School ‘suspends all permissive public access’ to Stoke Lodge
• Councillors vote against forcing school to open gates of controversial fence
• Stoke Lodge fence being reinstalled to ‘return it to school and community use’