Application Details
| Council | BCC |
|---|---|
| Reference | 20/00261/F |
| Address | Whiteladies Residential Home 22 Redland Park Bristol BS6 6SD
Street View |
| Ward |
|
| Proposal | Proposed demolition of coach house and conversion of Nursing Home into three 2 bedroom (3 bed space) flats, two 2 bedroom (4 bed space) flats, two 3 bedroom (6 bed space) flats and the rebuilding of the two storey coach house to form a new 2 bedroom (4 bed space) cottage, with associated bin and cycle storage and parking. |
| Validated | 06-02-20 |
| Type | Full Planning |
| Status | Decided |
| Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 18-03-20 |
| Standard Consultation Expiry | 17-03-20 |
| Determination Deadline | 02-04-20 |
| Decision | GRANTED subject to condition(s) |
| Decision Issued | 04-05-20 |
| BCC Planning Portal | on Planning Portal |
| Public Comments | Supporters: 0 Objectors: 8 Unstated: 1 Total: 9 |
| No. of Page Views | 0 |
| Comment analysis | Date of Submission |
| Nearby Trees | Within 200m |
BTF response:
OBJECT
The application was granted, but subject to conditions, including:
Arboriculture An arboricultural officer was consulted in relation to the proposals and raised concern over the scheme of tree removal and replacement. A revised scheme was submitted in response to concerns however the applicant ultimately opted to omit tree removal from the proposals. OFFICER NOTE: Proposals to remove trees have been omitted from the application following substantial concern raised by amenity groups and residents. All other concerns are considered in the proceeding key issues.
Redland Park Road is in a Conservation area. It has no street trees growing on it. The only trees visible from the road are those growing in front gardens, many of which are mature, large-specimen trees.
BTF Objection
These four trees form a part of continuous canopy of trees growing along the south eastern side of some six house frontages. Taken as a whole, they and form a striking and important public visual amenity which enhances to ambiance of the street. The removal of these four trees would effectively destroy this amenity.
On the basis of their trunk diameters, we calculate that these trees have a combined CAVAT value of almost £100,000. We calculate that, as best, it would take about 20 years to replace the lost CO2e caused by felling these trees even if 12 new trees were to be planted to replace them.
Policy DM21: Development of Private Gardens states at page 45:
Development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless:
i. The proposal would represent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densities are appropriate; or
ii. The development would result in a significant improvement to the urban design of an area; or
iii. The proposal is an extension to an existing single dwelling and would retain an adequate area of functional garden.
In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character and appearance of an area.
Development involving front gardens should ensure that the character of the street is not harmed and that appropriate boundary treatments and planting are retained.
This application meets not of these criteria and so the element seeking to remove the trees should be rejected.
We also endorse and adopt the comments made on behalf of the Redland and Cotham Amenity Society (RCAS):
"The trees are considered to make a positive contribution to the street scene in this conservation area. The trees visually have good form and if effectively managed going forward should enhance the area for many more years. Replacement of the trees in the same locations is also achievable should the trees come to the end of their life, which will maintain the current tree canopy for Bristol as set out in the Bristol One City Plan. Ref p38/64. The plan also identifies that alternative sites for replacement of similar trees within the local area are likely to be impossible to find."
Public Comments
on 2020-04-15 OBJECT
The Panel considers the proposals for the main house to be overdevelopment anddamaging to the existing fabric.The design of the coach house is uninspired.The loss of trees to the frontage would adversely affect the street scene. The arboricultural reportconflicts with the DAS, which states that all trees are to be retained. If removal is required, theyshould be replaced with smaller species in prepared tree pits.
on 2020-04-01 OBJECT
RCAS has submitted an objection to the proposed development because of the loss oftrees in the front garden.RCAS asks that, for the avoidance of doubt, a revised site plan which shows the proposed frontgarden layout is submitted before determination as there are significant discrepancies between thedrawings, the arboricultural report and the design and access statement, which may lead todifficulties in the future.
on 2020-04-01
Councillor referral form 22/10/13
By requesting to refer this application I understand that I am expected to submit a further statement* as part of the Public Forum section of the relevant Committee meeting and attend the Committee meeting. *Public Forum statements have to be with Democratic Services by Noon on the day before the Committee meeting. 1. The application that you are referring, must relate to a site within your ward.
2. The referral request must be received by Development Management no later
than 7 days after the end of the published consultation period. This is shown
for each application in Planning Online – see Important Dates tab. While there
may be a number of different dates listed here, the date that applies will be
the latest of the Expiry Dates for the neighbour and standard consultation,
advertisement and site notice.
3. You can only refer an application to a Development Control Committee for
planning reasons i.e. not for reasons such as loss of view, effect on property
values, private rights, boundary disputes, or construction noise. It is not
intended that a request from a constituent is simply “passed on” but that you
are supporting the views expressed in this referral, and will attend the
committee meeting.
4. The referred application will be considered by the next available committee
meeting in order to assist us in determining planning applications in
accordance with Government performance targets. Therefore, it could be
considered by any of the area committees (Central, South and East, or North).
5. Early contact with the case officer is recommended in order to establish the
reasons for any potential referral and to explore potential solutions to the
situation.
on 2020-03-13 OBJECT
I do not object to the refurbishment of the property in general, as the site is in need ofimprovement and this development appears to be sympathetic to the general design of the area,which borders a conservation area. I do, however, object to 2 points regarding the plans asfollows;
Removal of trees: This application contains 2 contradictory recommendations. The design andaccess statement proposes to keep the trees. The Aboricultural report states the trees will beremoved for parking. I object to the removal of trees on this site. If the current trees are to befelled, they should be replaced when the building work is completed to ensure green space isretained.
Parking: The number of parking spaces do not appear to be equal to the number of units /potential residents. I object on the view that this will increase pressure on the current streetparking in an area where Bristol Council appears to be keen not to encourage cars and car use.
on 2020-03-11 OBJECT
This comment applies to the photographs I added to my previous concerns:
Planning documents do not seem to show the difference in levels between the proposeddevelopment and my house at 26 Westfield Park. As the photos show ( in posted comments onMarch 4th document) my house is several feet below. There are shared gutters.Also the proposed change of use to flat roof at the rear of the main building is some 4 feet abovemy garden wall - hence my concern about losing privacy.
on 2020-03-04 OBJECT
3. My other main concern is the change to the roof top of the rear room of the main building Unit 4. It has only been used as a fire escape and for occasional access, but now has plans to change it into a living space. This would look directly into my walled garden and remove any privacy. 4. I am concerned about the lack of parking spaces as there could be at least 18+ people living on this premises. This would increase pressure on street parking. There seems to be a contradiction in documents about the removal of large trees to make room for these parking spaces. Not only would this change the character of the area but also reduce production of oxygen and be contrary to reducing pollution. With the removal of the garden to tarmac this may well cause drainage problems. Please confirm what steps will be taken to manage rain water.
on 2020-02-20 OBJECT
Commenting on behalf of the Redland and Cotham Amenity Society (RCAS). The treesare considered to make a positive contribution to the street scene in this conservation area. Thetrees visually have good form and if effectively managed going forward should enhance the areafor many more years. Replacement of the trees in the same locations is also achievable shouldthe trees come to the end of their life, which will maintain the current tree canopy for Bristol as setout in the Bristol One City Plan. Ref p38/64. The plan also identifies that alternative sites forreplacement of similar trees within the local area are likely to be impossible to find.