Dear Natalie, We have read the revised plans and response to our objections and have responded on line. As I cannot upload images I attach our objections with the images showing the revised height of the proposed development. These drawing are made as accurately as possible and heights measured from all sides. The artist is also an engineer and is fully aware these are simply to show the impact this development would have. As you will see from the images the height is still significant and we are still objecting to the plans for a number of reasons a summary of which is below: The plans still show an overbearing nature. This is a 2 storey proposal as stated in the plans. The roof lights have now been lowered to 0.9m from 1.7m increasing the overlooking nature. The new images show just how overbearing the proposal will be in comparison to the current height of buildings on the plot. There is only parking for 1 car when the recommendation for a 3 bed is 2 parking spaces. The loss of a potential amenity. 7 garages in this neighbourhood are hugely sort after. The new tree assessment clearly states the RPA is well within the proposed foundation and may be effected. At 0.6m from the base of the tree there is a very high chance the trees will not survive. I speak for the entire neighbour when I say we understand the likelyhood of some type of development. New garages would be our first choice but there is ample room on this site for a 2 bedroom property with an adequate garden but, more fundamentally, a single storey development.

If you have any issues opening the file please do let me know. Kind regards Jason Bailey

Auburn Rd/ Westfield Park / Redland Road/ Woodland Terrace Residents BS6 Natalie Queffurus Planning Officer Bristol City Council Development Management City Hall PO Box 3399 Bristol BS1 9NE

Dear Natalie Queffurus,

Objection to Planning Application 20/01535/F

This letter is an objection to the planning application ref 20/01535/F submitted for the Yard, Woodland Terrace, Bristol BS66LR. The purpose of this letter is to highlight the overbearing nature of the plans and the impact this has on the adjoining properties accompanied by photos.

These are an artist’s impression and scaled to the best of their ability; the timing of this proposal with self isolation enforced due to Coronavirus has made it incredibly difficult to gain access and take pinpoint accurate measurements of the proposed plans. However, the height of the proposed dwelling on these drawings is accurate to 5.5m +/- 30cm.

From Woodland Terrace

From 24 Redland Park

From 14 Auburn Road

From 13 Auburn Road

From Woodland Terrace

From The Coach House, 26 Westfield Park

A copy of our objections is as follows:

Firstly, we would like to express our surprise to the tone used by Graham River architects. We are not architects and are only trying to express our legitimate concerns over the proposal. We felt intimidated by the response from Graham River Architects and are worried this is a tactic to undermine our objections now and on future appeals.

1. Impact on Surrounding area

i. “No overbearing impact” The plans have incorrectly assumed that the living areas of both 13 and 14 Auburn road are in their basements whereas they are actually on the hall floors, one storey up and look across to the new development.

ii. We would like to point out that the proposed development is actually a 2 storey building not 1.5 as is frequently mentioned; If you read the plans 2b, the architect themselves refer to the building as a 2 storey dwelling.

iii. “The height of the building is now 5.5m, whereas in comparison the height of the neighbouring buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site are in the majority of cases more than double this height.“ A comparison should be made between the height, not of the surrounding buildings, but of the current flat roofed garages, 2.1m and the proposed 5.5m 2-storey plans to gain an idea of the impact on the surrounding area. The revised height has made little difference to the impact of the view into and out of the proposed site as can be seen from the artist drawings provided.

iv. “All roof lights are positioned 1.7m above the 1st floor level” is incorrect. The East facing windows have now, in fact, been lowered to 0.9m which is even worse than before.

v. Although the windows have been set back by 7.5cm on the new plans, there is still a clear view from the South facing bedroom windows into No. 13 and No.12 Auburn rd.

vi. The architects have criticised the artist’s drawings. New drawings will be provided with as much accuracy as can be made without being able to enter the site and were measured on all sides using a measured pole. If the architect would like even more accurate representations, perhaps they would like to provide their own professional representational drawings, such as those seen on sales brochures. We would be happy to allow access for this to be done. This would be very helpful for all the surrounding occupiers to visualise the impact of the proposed development.

vii. The architect says “We are not proposing to restrict the view of a wide vista, or anything of beauty or interest” we disagree. The views into the conservation area will be blocked by the new building and we will lose the current natural gap between the surrounding 4-5 storey buildings. Also, the high potential of losing several trees within the conservation area is certainly damaging. National Planning Policy states that the setting of a Conservation Area [NPPF February 2019] and views into or out of a Conservation Area [Planning Practice Guidance 23rd July 2019] should be safeguarded.

viii. No consultation with residents were made to try to come to an agreement as to what would be acceptable. We think a single storey building or a high quality set of garages would be more sympathetic to the area.

2. Parking

i. The official recommendation for a 6 person house is 2 cars; this would add pressure on local road parking which is already beyond capacity; the imminent development of 25 Redland Park Road into 9 flats plus a 3 bedroom house will further exacerbate this problem.

ii. The future potential for 2 flats (as indicated in the plans) would increase parking pressure even more.

iii. “The neighbour made an erroneous statement” is incorrect. Our statement was based on a conversation with Mr Cox, one of the owner’s sons. He informed us they were asking the current tenants to leave because they needed the space for their late father’s possessions. We asked him if it was possible to rent and he said no. At a later date we asked him if we could purchase the plot, he replied that he would contact his brother and sister, who were looking after the finances and pass the message on. He went to on say they were trying to get planning permission to increase the value of the plot. We had no response. Other neighbours also approached Mr Cox with the same line of enquiries to no avail.

v. Potential loss of 7 garages for the community.

vi. There is a very high demand for garages in this area. In just one week we discovered 15 people who want to purchase or rent a garage in the Redland area. This shows the high popularity of retaining these as garages.

vii. Information is required as to the justification and impact the loss of the garages would have before the proposals should be considered.

3. Trees and Hedges.

i. “There will be no impact”. This is an incorrect statement. The arboricultural assessment clearly states there will be some adverse impact on the trees and goes as far as to suggest the Cyprus trees may have be removed altogether. The removal of the overhanging canopy is not the only issue. There has been no ground conditions report and as the soil is clay the foundations could be very deep; given that the tree trunks are only 0.6m from the boundary there will very likely be some destruction of the root system.

ii. Apart from the major pruning we are concerned with the effect the footings and foundations will have on the trees. These will be at least 1m in depth and being only 0.6m from the base of at least 2 trees. 7.5 of the Arboricultural report states the root protection areas(RPA) of these trees extend beneath the concrete boundary wall to some extent and into the subject site. Excavation to construct a new dwelling will will take place within the RPA and its ongoing condition may to some extent be effected. In drawing TP 2625/2005/TCP it clearly shows the RPA falls well within the boundary of the proposed plan and the said trees will almost certainly suffer.

iii. The Arboricultural assessment pointed out that great care must be taken regarding the Willow tree. Can this be guaranteed? The loss of trees is therefore the main issue through severe pruning and foundation digging. These trees are an important contribution to the neighbourhood for both wildlife and the privacy afforded by at least 10 properties, not including all the individual flats at 24 Redland Road and 26 Westfield Park, in total about 24 properties.

iv. The Architect keeps referring to the current site as having no trees and that planting of shrubs in the garden will improve the nature but it is clearly the loss of the large trees through foundations and pruning that they neglect to address. They may have 7 trees down to be planted in the design but this is unrealistic in such a small garden and we have yet to see any recent builds

in the local area where planting has actually been as it was originally proposed in any planning applications.

4. Shadow Study

A shadow study has been carried out but we would like to point out this is not an independent study but one done by the development architect.

5. Walls

We are pleased to see that the ancient wall on the Eastern side is now not part of the new structure and has decent access on both sides for maintenance and airflow.

6. Covenants

The Deeds state that the covenant on this plot was sold in 1963 and that the,

"The Vendors hereby release the Purchaser and his successors in title from all future obligation and liability under and by virtue of the covenants on the part of the Grantee contained in the said Deed of the 28th day of September 1867 so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of being enforced.”

Does this also release the restrictive covenants of the previous owners at 26 Westfield Park and who exactly released these covenants when this land was sold?

26 Westfield park and the adjoining coachhouse have the right to maintain the wall from both sides? How will that be achieved?

7. Allison Court, Apsley Road, Bristol ( 16/06979/F ) was a very similar proposal also located in Whiteladies conservation area. The proposals were objected on grounds which this proposed plan appears to copy:

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale, height, form and overall design and appearance (including materials) would fail to respond appropriately to the surrounding environment and would result in the introduction of an overly prominent, incongruous feature, out of character with surrounding development to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area.

Due to the location and position of windows to habitable rooms and minimal separation distance between properties the proposal would result in detrimental levels of direct and perceived overlooking between the proposed dwelling and residential properties.

7. Future developmentWe appreciate that the current garages could be considered an eyesore, although for us they provide an open space and a welcome gap in this very built-up collection of tall 4-5 storey buildings. Plus, the tall cypress trees provide us with much needed privacy from the flats of 26 Westfield Park and directly opposite.

However the loss of this privacy and space and the potential for even further development on this site if planning is granted is very worrying. There is a high chance the actual developers of the land will want to alter these plans; building 2 or more flats has been suggested by the present architect already and the flat roof in the plans has the potential to be built on.

The current owners have no intention of living in this property and have only assigned consultants to design a building that will pass planning and therefore increase the value of the land. There is no guarantee the new buyers will adhere to these plans. The new revised plans have not addressed this issue, which in fairness they cannot. However, as approximately 24 properties look over the site and will be majorly affected by development, the planning officer might like to consider only plans that are likely to be adhered to:

The proposed plans do not make an especially nice living space with the current 1st floor plans; future builders will want to raise the roof back to at 7m at the very least. The architect has gone to great lengths to ‘tick the ecological boxes’ for this build but as the current owners are not actually planning to build this house themselves, the green roof, electric car port and use of the complementary materials in the design is irrelevant as they are unlikely to be carried through in the actual build. (We feel we are justified in this opinion having watched other planning applications in the local area fail to adhere to proposed plans.)

The car port itself is rather an ambitious idea for such a small plot. If, as the architect says, there are no local parking problems, this carport could be scratched from the plans. Then there would be room for a 2-bedroom single storey building on the floorplan as it is. Or the floor area could be increased for a third bedroom/work unit. Both cases would allow for a second, front, garden and more space for planting the planned trees. This would address the majority of our concerns and we would welcome the development.


I live in the property behind the existing garages and proposed new building.I would like to object again to the impact of a high wall and roof at the end of my garden obscuringsky and therefore light. There would be extra shadow from this too. Although the height of thebuilding has been lowered, the wall and roof will still have a very dominant effect on my property.Even though I do have a gazebo, the new house will be significantly above it in height and lessfitting in a conversation area.The green corridor between the rows of houses is extremely important in this conservation areaand the new proposed building will change the outlook for many flats and houses in the area,whereas a single story house would not.Retaining established trees is more important than ever for environmental reasons and it seemsvery unlikely that trees around this new development would survive.I particularly object to the height of the building - a single story building would have far lessnegative impact.

I am the owner of Flats 1,3,4 & 5 at 26 Westfield Park.

I am currently non-resident, but may well be resident at some point in the future.

I represent my own interests as the owner of 4 nearby properties that will be significantly impactedby the proposals (so that their market value may be adversely impacted) - as well as the Interestsof current and future residents of those four properties.

I note the reduction in height and other adjustments to the plans for the rear elevation which aredesigned to address some of the concerns raised by me and others previously.

However, it should be noted that Plan 1941-02B which incorporates the alterations is dated 11/19.That would mean it was drafted prior to the submission of the original plan. If that is correct, itsuggests that the plan initially submitted was deliberately designed to push at the extremes, in thehope that a revised pan might then appear to be more reasonable. In short the tactic appears tobe to try and 'soften up' the planning department by the submission of the original plan in the hopethe revised plan will then seem more reasonable by comparison.

The revised plans still propose a significant rear height elevation of 5.5m, which is bound to havean adverse impact upon 26 Westfield Park. There will inevitably result in a permanent loss ofsunlight to the garden at 26 Westfield Park as well as loss of privacy to all residents.

Flat 4 26 Westfield Park is at first floor level to the rear of the property. It is the nicest of the flats inthe building, specifically because it is at the rear of the building and consequently very private with

a view overlooking the rear garden. If the current proposal is allowed it will significantly alter theview from every room in that flat (bedroom, kitchen and lounge).

For the above reasons I wish to maintain my objection to the proposal.

I am a resident in Broomwell Lodge which backs on to the proposed development. Iobject to the current planning application on several grounds:

1. The height of the building being over single storey willinevitably cause a serious infringement to the privacy of those living at 26 Westfield Park where Ilive. The windows will directly face those of 26 Westfield Park having a direct impact on privacy.

2. Secondly, pruning of the mature fully grown trees at 26Westfield Park will need to be done without reducing crown height and without substantiallyreducing the privacy they provide to neighbouring properties. Such action should be taken in closeconsultation with neighbours. These trees should not be substantially pruned in order to serve thepurposes of the proposed planning in affording additional space or light. Indeed it seems veryunlikely that trees around this new development would survive.

3. The proposed building will inevitably cause a detrimental effect on the green corridor betweenthe rows of houses in this conservation area. The new proposed building will change the outlookfor many flats and houses in the area.

These are serious issues which will have a material effect on the living standards of the propertywhere I live, in particular those relating to privacy. I implore you to give them full consideration.

We stand by our previous objection that if this plot is developed the density ofpopulation and buildings will be very high and very disproportionate to the rest of the area.

In the light of Covid 19 it would be nice to think that the human race would start to think about it'slong term survival and put environment and space above luxury development with more cars,waste and pollution.

I have looked at the revised plans for the new 2 story development at Woodland terraceand although some minor changes have been made including a small reduction in overall heightthe proposed property is still a significant two story construction infill which does not follow theexisting building lines and is out of character and scale for the conservation area in which it will belocated.

I am objecting the proposed new build at Yard woodland Terrace for several reasons.

The height and scale of the property, its location outside of the existing road structure, the propertyis not sympathetic with the current protected architecture in a conservation area, impact on theexisting agriculture, loss light to the communal amenities and private terraces to the rear of 24Redland Park.

There will be a loss of light to the rear of 24 Redland park and although the shadow study seeks tominimise this it does confirm that loss of light will occur. It is stated that this area is not an amenityfor the property which in inaccurate. The area is used for car parking and there are 2no privateterraces for flats 7 and 8. The rear of the property is private and sunny, so it is used by theresidents to sit out. sunbath and socialise. It is used as a communal amenity and will be impactedby the loss of light. The shadow report does not seem to accurately reflect what I observe daily. Ifthe assumptions on the current situation is not accurate then I am not convinced that theassumptions made about the new build are accurate. I do not believe this report was carried outby an independent consultant. To the best of my knowledge no site visit was made Redland Courtand there has been to contact with the residents which may be why it was assumed that the areawas not used as an amenity.

The property will dominate the outlook from 24 Redland Park and is neither in line with the existingRd structure or sympathetic to the area with the protected Victorian properties architecture and layout. The existing tress will be compromised by the build which will impact the existing character ofthe area. The existing trees are described as being in poor condition. This would not appear to bethe case as the canopy is lush and provides privacy for the surrounding neighbors. The amount ofcanopy and roots that will be disturbed will affect the viability of the existing trees. The reportadvises that the garage concrete base is left in place to protect the roots of the Goat Willow. Thisbase is to be removed after the property is complete. This will be difficult to achieve and not sitvery well with the contractor as after the house is built there will only be pedestrian access to thegarden area. I fear we may lose many of the existing trees should planning be agreed.

It is stated in the revised documents that the property will create a positive visual terminus at theend of Woodland Terrace. As the proposed property does now follow the existing Rd layout thevisual appearance from Redland Court will not be positive but blighted. I appreciate outlook is notprotected under planning law but in this case, we are in a conservation area and the reason forthis status is surely to protect the architecture, layout and appeared of an area. Its character. Byinfilling and closing the existing space we are materially altering the character of the area. Thespacing of properties there style the space is all part of the areas character and surly whatconservation status is there to protect.

The impression of the new build was scaled by taking measurements off the existing structuresand boundary walls.

There where 2no photos in this section to show the before and after effect on the new build fromthe perspective of 24 Redland park but these have not copied across. The outlook if the new buildis constructed will be a grey gable end which will fill the majority of the space. The appearance willbe akin to a modern industrial shed as opposed to 2no Victorian terraces and the gardenagriculture.

There is mention in the documents about noise and that the sounds of a family will be a positivebenefit as opposed the current noise of hammering, sawing and welding. I have lived adjoining thissite for 18 months and the only noise I have heard is a motorcycle starting twice. As I havepreviously stated it appears the site has been left to deteriorate rather that return it to its intendeduse which would be preferable as the area is crying out for garage space. Unfortunately, this typeof development and the removal of garages is happening all over Redland, Clifton and Cothamincreasing the parking problems and diminishing the appearance of the area that should beprotected under its conservation status.

One off road parking space is provided for with this design. I find it unlikely that a property of thissize will attract a family that will only require one car. Some on road parking is likely to be required.

Ideally the site should be returned to its original use and properly maintained. If this is not possiblythen existing structures on the site are single story and this size of construction would be lessintrusive, reduce the impact with regard to privacy and light to the surrounding residents, detractless from the visual impact of a new build within a conservation are and arguable reduce the riskof damage to the existing agriculture as the amount of canopy possibly roots that would have to beremoved would reduce. The current proposal will and the very least compromise the viability of theCyprus Firs and possibly the goat willow.The height of the existing properties should not be relevant as they are all in keeping with thecharacter of the area and follow the original Rd lay outs. They do not compromise this and reducethe light and privacy of the other properties.

Firstly, we would like to express our surprise to the tone used by Graham Riverarchitects.We are not architects and are only trying to express our legitimate concerns over the proposal. Wefelt intimidated by the response from Graham River Architects and are worried this is a tactic toundermine our objections now and on future appeals.

1. Impact on Surrounding area

i. "No overbearing impact" The plans have incorrectly assumed that the living areas of both 13 and14 Auburn road are in their basements whereas they are actually on the hall floors, one storey upand look across to the new development.

ii. We would like to point out that the proposed development is actually a 2 storey building not 1.5as is frequently mentioned; If you read the plans 2b, the architect themselves refer to the buildingas a 2 storey dwelling.

iii. "The height of the building is now 5.5m, whereas in comparison the height of the neighbouringbuildings in the immediate vicinity of the site are in the majority of cases more than double thisheight."A comparison should be made between the height, not of the surrounding buildings, but of thecurrent flat roofed garages, 2.1m and the proposed 5.5m 2-storey plans to gain an idea of theimpact on the surrounding area. The revised height has made little difference to the impact of theview into and out of the proposed site as can be seen from the artist drawings provided.

iv. "All roof lights are positioned 1.7m above the 1st floor level" is incorrect. The East facingwindows have now, in fact, been lowered to 0.9m which is even worse than before.

v. Although the windows have been set back by 7.5cm on the new plans, there is still a clear viewfrom the South facing bedroom windows into No. 13 and No.12 Auburn rd.

vi. The architects have criticised the artist's drawings. New drawings will be provided with as muchaccuracy as can be made without being able to enter the site and were measured on all sidesusing a measured pole.If the architect would like even more accurate representations, perhaps they would like to providetheir own professional representational drawings, such as those seen on sales brochures. Wewould be happy to allow access for this to be done. This would be very helpful for all thesurrounding occupiers to visualise the impact of the proposed development.

vii. "We are not proposing to restrict the view of a wide vista, or anything of beauty or interest" wedisagree.The views into the conservation area will be blocked by the new building and we will lose thecurrent natural gap between the surrounding 4-5 storey buildings. Also, the high potential of losingseveral trees within the conservation area is certainly damaging.National Planning Policy states that the setting of a Conservation Area [NPPF February 2019] andviews into or out of a Conservation Area [Planning Practice Guidance 23rd July 2019] should besafeguarded.

viii. No consultation with residents were made to try to come to an agreement as to what would beacceptable. We think a single storey building or a high quality set of garages would be moresympathetic to the area.

2. Parking

i. The official recommendation for a 6 person house is 2 cars; this would add pressure on localroad parking which is already beyond capacity; the imminent development of 25 Redland ParkRoad into 9 flats plus a 3 bedroom house will further exacerbate this problem.

ii. The future potential for 2 flats (as indicated in the plans) would increase parking pressure evenmore.

iii. "The neighbour made an erroneous statement" is incorrect. Our statement was based on aconversation with Mr Cox, one of the owner's sons. He informed us they were asking the currenttenants to leave because they needed the space for their late father's possessions. We asked himif it was possible to rent and he said no. At a later date we asked him if we could purchase the

plot, he replied that he would contact his brother and sister, who were looking after the financesand pass the message on. He went to on say they were trying to get planning permission toincrease the value of the plot. We had no response. Other neighbours also approached Mr Coxwith the same line of enquiries to no avail.

v. Potential loss of 7 garages for the community.

vi. There is a very high demand for garages in this area. In just one week we discovered 15 peoplewho want to purchase or rent a garage in the Redland area. This shows the high popularity ofretaining these as garages.

vii. Information is required as to the justification and impact the loss of the garages would havebefore the proposals should be considered.

3. Trees and Hedges.

i. "There will be no impact". This is an incorrect statement. The arboricultural assessment clearlystates there will be some adverse impact on the trees and goes as far as to suggest the Cyprustrees may have be removed altogether.The removal of the overhanging canopy is not the only issue. There has been no groundconditions report and as the soil is clay the foundations could be very deep; given that the treetrunks are only 0.6m from the boundary there will very likely be some destruction of the rootsystem.

ii. Apart from the major pruning we are concerned with the effect the footings and foundations willhave on the trees. These will be at least 1m in depth and being only 0.6m from the base of at least2 trees. 7.5 of the Arboricultural report states the root protection areas(RPA) of these trees extendbeneath the concrete boundary wall to some extent and into the subject site. Excavation toconstruct a new dwelling will will take place within the RPA and its ongoing condition may to someextent be effected. In drawing TP 2625/2005/TCP it clearly shows the RPA falls well within theboundary of the proposed plan and the said trees will almost certainly suffer.

iii. The Arboricultural assessment pointed out that great care must be taken regarding the Willowtree. Can this be guaranteed? The loss of trees is therefore the main issue through severe pruningand foundation digging. These trees are an important contribution to the neighbourhood for bothwildlife and the privacy afforded by at least 10 properties, not including all the individual flats at 24Redland Road and 26 Westfield Park, in total about 24 properties.

iv. The Architect keeps referring to the current site as having no trees and that planting of shrubsin the garden will improve the nature but it is clearly the loss of the large trees through foundations

and pruning that they neglect to address. They may have 7 trees down to be planted in the designbut this is unrealistic in such a small garden and we have yet to see any recent builds in the localarea where planting has actually been as it was originally proposed in any planning applications.

4. Shadow StudyA shadow study has been carried out but we would like to point out this is not an independentstudy but one done by the development architect.5. WallsWe are pleased to see that the ancient wall on the Eastern side is now not part of the newstructure and has decent access on both sides for maintenance and airflow.6. CovenantsThe Deeds state that the covenant on this plot was sold in 1963 and that the,"The Vendors hereby release the Purchaser and his successors in title from all future obligationand liability under and by virtue of the covenants on the part of the Grantee contained in the saidDeed of the 28th day of September 1867 so far as the same are still subsisting and capable ofbeing enforced."Does this also release the restrictive covenants of the previous owners at 26 Westfield Park andwho exactly released these covenants when this land was sold?26 Westfield park and the adjoining coachhouse have the right to maintain the wall from bothsides? How will that be achieved?7. Allison Court, Apsley Road, Bristol ( 16/06979/F ) was a very similar proposal also located inWhiteladies conservation area. The proposals were objected on grounds which this proposed planappears to copy:The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale, height, form and overall design and appearance(including materials) would fail to respond appropriately to the surrounding environment and wouldresult in the introduction of an overly prominent, incongruous feature, out of character withsurrounding development to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of theWhiteladies Road Conservation Area.Due to the location and position of windows to habitable rooms and minimal separation distancebetween properties the proposal would result in detrimental levels of direct and perceivedoverlooking between the proposed dwelling and residential properties.

7. Future development We appreciate that the current garages could be considered an eyesore,although for us they provide an open space and a welcome gap in this very built-up collection oftall 4-5 storey buildings. Plus, the tall cypress trees provide us with much needed privacy from theflats of 26 Westfield Park and directly opposite.

However the loss of this privacy and space and the potential for even further development on thissite if planning is granted is very worrying. There is a high chance the actual developers of theland will want to alter these plans; building 2 or more flats has been suggested by the presentarchitect already and the flat roof in the plans has the potential to be built on.

The current owners have no intention of living in this property and have only assigned consultantsto design a building that will pass planning and therefore increase the value of the land. There isno guarantee the new buyers will adhere to these plans. The new revised plans have notaddressed this issue, which in fairness they cannot. However, as approximately 24 properties lookover the site and will be majorly affected by development, the planning officer might like toconsider only plans that are likely to be adhered to:

The proposed plans do not make an especially nice living space with the current 1st floor plans;future builders will want to raise the roof back to at 7m at the very least. The architect has gone togreat lengths to 'tick the ecological boxes' for this build but as the current owners are not actuallyplanning to build this house themselves, the green roof, electric car port and use of thecomplementary materials in the design is irrelevant as they are unlikely to be carried through in theactual build. (We feel we are justified in this opinion having watched other planning applications inthe local area fail to adhere to proposed plans.)The car port itself is rather an ambitious idea for such a small plot. If, as the architect says, thereare no local parking problems, this carport could be scratched from the plans. Then there would beroom for a 2-bedroom single storey building on the floorplan as it is. Or the floor area could beincreased for a third bedroom/work unit. Both cases would allow for a second, front, garden andmore space for planting the planned trees. This would address the majority of our concerns andwe would welcome the development.

I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Simon Jennings.While our property does not share a boundary with the proposed development, we are aware it willseriously impact on the lives of our friends and neighbours living closer to the site, and we are insympathy with their objections. We do not think we are precluded from making a comment.Conservation relating to buildings and the built environment.Auburn Road and Woodland Terrace are within a conservation area, the former buildings being19C and the latter a Grade 11 listed terrace.We believe the proposed building will neither 'safeguard or enhance' these surrounding importantbuildings, as highlighted in Bristol's Development Strategy Policy BCS 22. We are pleased thereare some changes and/or modification to some of the building materials, a slight lowering of theapex and angle of the roof and some shifting of windows. However, this is still a substantially sizedbuilding which will be imposing and jar uncomfortably with its surroundings.Conservation relating to the natural environment.The gardens Of Auburn Road form a natural green corridor running behind the houses, withmature trees adjacent to the site. We think there is potential for serious damage to be done to thetrees when they are pruned and reduced as proposed, and loss of canopy to the largest couldcompromise its survival. The gardens and trees are home to many birds and small mammals,foxe, bats, and a sparrow hawk is often seen. The area is a big part of our "distinctiveneighbourhood, helping to define the city's appeal to both residence and visitors., as valued byBCC.While new trees may be planted on the site, which is good to see as there was no plannedplanting previously, it will be many years befor they reach maturity. The conservation of thesepockets of life is very important for the life of animals and the wellbeing of people.While we understand the owner's wish to capitalise on their site, we would ask that any

development protects trees and that the building itself is further reduced in height so it does notdominate and infringe on existing homes, or spoil the architectural impact of the listed buildings inthis conservation area.

I write on behalf of myself and my wife Joleen Keizer.

We continue to object to the proposal on the original grounds. We still firmly believe there will be aloss of privacy, overlooking, and light from the proposal. Whereas we welcome the amendmentsmade to the plans, we do not deem them to go far enough to avoid the losses stated above.

The response to the objections state the kitchen wall of the proposal will not be seen from theground floor or from our garden. We do not deem this to be the case from the revised plans andtherefore suggest artists impressions are produced and shared for all residents to view.

The proposal continues to be labelled as a one half storey dwelling which is not clear versus thedefinition. We do not believe this specific question raised was answered in the response to theobjections.

We also raised the point of no precedence of similar buildings along the borderline of AuburnRoad and Bramford Terrace. This proposal out of character with the rest of the dividing border aswell as the local conservation area.

We are not convinced by the shadow study. The fact it was prepared by the architects themselvesdoes not make it independent and should be produced by a professional body.

YoursSimon Redpath and Joleen Keizer

My main issue with the proposed development is the height to which it will be built. Asingle floor bungalow would be much more appropriate.

My concern of loss of privacy from being overlooked into my living room and my main bedroomfrom the new build bedroom has not been addressed in any meaningful way. Rather the architecthas been dismissive of my concerns. I wonder if he has placed himself in the shoes of the poorresident of the planned house who will be faced with looking up at me as I look down upon themfrom my bedroom. The loss of privacy I refer to will indeed be a two way experience.

The architect's reference to google world does not actually match my own lived experience ofbeing able to into see the neighbours who live beyond the garage area. They are some wayaway......my concern is that I will have a very direct and close view into my new neighbours life. Nomatter how much I might try to avoid it, I will be looking into their bedroom every time I use mybedroom window.

Although the height of the proposed development has been reduced there will still be asignificant loss of light for the flats in our building (I own Flat 6). The view from our flat will be muchless appealing and quite ugly, thus deminishing the environment here.

This application is totally our of character with this neighbourhood and should be rejected.

To whom it may concern,I have consulted the plans and am concerned on multiple counts regarding the proposed planning.Firstly, I am concerned regarding the height of the building being over single storey which willinevitably infringe the privacy of those living at 26 Westfield Park. If the windows directly face 26Westfield Park this will have a direct impact on privacy to those whose flats overlook the garden(of which mine is one, at almost direct level with the wall and above). Even if the windows of theproperty are not directly facing us, the angled roof windows will presumably still be able tooverlook the top flats at 26 Westfield Park given the disparity in height of the buildings. Theproposed building being much lower than those surrounding it is irrelevant in modern planningpermission in a conservation area as there needs to be a balance between proposed planning,impact on neighbouring properties and environmental impact.Secondly, my concern is again regarding privacy in relation to the "pruning" of the trees at 26Westfield Park. I understand that if the overhanging branches are causing damage to theneighbouring property then this needs to be addressed, however, I would implore those whopropose to prune these trees to do so without reducing crown height and without substantiallyreducing the privacy they afford to neighbouring properties. Any such action should be taken inclose consultation with neighbours. These trees should not be substantially pruned in order toserve the purposes of the proposed planning in affording additional space or light. Given that theyare established trees their environmental impact is not equivocal to planting a few extra saplings.As evident from above, my primary concerns regarding this proposed planning relate to theprivacy impact of this property both during and post construction on residents at 26 Westfield Park.

1. We have bats flying around the gardens here. We don't know where they live. Pleaseensure you do a bat survey before demolition.2. The songbirds are thriving in the trees that are due for a severe pruning. Many nest with chicksthat are just fledging Can the work please be done at a time of year that causes the minimumdisruption to these valuable natural assets? Autumn would be better than Summer.

RCAS has concerns about the visual impact of this building on the area. Althoughdescribed as a one half storey building it is clearly a 2 storey building with a steeply pitched roofwhich will be highly visible from streets and properties around the site.The pitch of the roof is v steep which leads to an excessive overall height. A shallower pitch wouldreduce the impact from the views along Woodland Terrace and lead to a less overbearing impacton surrounding properties.The development will require significant reduction in the tree canopy of trees in neighbouringgardens and there is no contibution to improving the tree canopy of the area in mitigation of thisloss. The front paved parking area is unecessarily oversized for a single off-street parking spaceand could be significantly improved by including planting, including a small tree which would alsocontribute to improving the setting of the building.

Consultation

We note that these proposals were the subject of pre-application discussions with the Planning Authority. However, these proposals were submitted without any prior notification or consultation with the objectors or indeed any other neighbours. Whilst we appreciate that there is no statutory obligation on the applicant to can-y out any pre-application consultation however given that the applicant lives at No. 13 Auburn Road and that the proposals will have a significant impact on their local amenity, it is perhaps unf01iunate that such informal consultation was not carried out. Clearly, the proposals have caused considerable concern in the local area which has resulted in this and a number of other objections from nearby residents.

Description of Development

The proposal has been described on the application forms as: -

"Demolition of existing garages and proposed one half storey dwelling with parking and a rear garden"

It is apparent from an examination of the submitted plans that what is being proposed is not a one half storey dwelling. It is in fact a two storey dwelling. This is apparent from the Design, Access & Heritage Statement which describes the accommodation proposed within the ground and first floor (clearly 2 storeys). In addition, it is apparent on Plan No. 1941 02A Proposed Dwelling Proposed Plans Elections & Sections, that the proposal is described as a two storey dwelling within the schedule of areas on that plan. We would therefore request that the application be withdrawn on the basis that the description of development is clearly wrong and misleading to local residents and statut01-y consultees who may not have the benefit of examining the submitted plans and supporting documentation.

Application Context

As stated above, we have examined the application and supp01iing documentation and are surprised that it has been validated. We believe that the application is lacking a variety of supp01iing information which includes: -

1. A detailed Heritage Statement which includes the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area together with an assessment on the setting ofthe listed buildings in Woodland Terrace. We will return to this issue later but the submitted Heritage Assessment is insufficient and lacking detail on these issues.

11. A Tree Survey given the proximity of tree which are within the Conservation Area and the impact of the proposal on these trees. The application f01m is incorrectly answered at Question 11 on this issue.

iii. A Daylight & Sunlight analysis given the proposed scale, mass and height of the propetiy and its impact on the living conditions of adjoining residents. The submitted

D2 2

Design, Access & Heritage Statement does not adequately consider this issue and no analysis of reduced daylight or sunlight is provided.

1v. A Ground Conditions Rep011 given the historical use ofthe site.

v. A Biodiversity Repm1 pat1icularly given that the existing garages are to be demolished and bats have been seen in the area.

v1. A series of cross sections which illustrate the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties. This is pmticularly important given the potential impact of an enlarged building on living conditions of existing residents but also the character and appearance of the surrounding area which contains statutmy designated heritage assets. Accordingly, the local residents have prepared a series of artist impressions which demonstrate the potential impact of the building. A series of before and after comparisons are attached.

vii. There is no topographical survey of the site and so it is not possible to accurately determine the precise impact of the proposal on neighbouring propet1ies.

Planning History

Reference has been made to a previous application for a two storey dwelling which was granted planning and listed building consent in 1985. However, these permissions have long since lapsed and are over 30 years old. The planning system has greatly changed since that time and the current proposal needs to be assessed against cunent adopted planning policies within the Statutory Development Plan as well as the NPPF. A proper analysis of these proposals against current policies and advice concludes that these proposals should be refused.

Site Conditions

The site has previously been used as 7 garages. There is no Ground Condition Rep011 or topographical survey which accompanies the application. Accordingly, there is no indication of the requisite ground conditions or existing and proposed levels for the proposed development. It is requested that such information be submitted as part of these proposals.

Impact on Whiteladies Road Conservation Area

The Design, Access & Heritage Statement recognises that the site falls within the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that: -

"Special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area."

D2 3

The NPPF states at paragraph 189 that: -

"In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposals on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation."

The submitted application is devoid of an adequate Heritage Assessment which assesses the potential impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area as required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The Design, Access & Heritage Statement does no more than identify the fact that the site falls within the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area. No actual assessment is made of the contribution the site makes to the Conservation Area or impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to preserving the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Council's Whiteladies Road Conservation Area Assessment Report states with regards the towns cape character of the area that: -

"The broad character of the area remains largely intact and consists of large scale terraces and some detached villas in traditional materials ... "

Furthermore: -

"Trees planted in streets and front gardens are an integral part of the character of this Victorian suburb."

The proposal would result in a dwelling which is out of scale and character with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as outlined above. Fmthermore, the materials within the Conservation Area are of local Brandon Hill and Bath stone. The proposal would not be in keeping pmticularly zinc standing seam cladding/grey powder coated aluminium and cedar panelling. All of these materials are not typical to the Conservation Area and it is not correct to state that they exist in the immediately locality. Indeed, interestingly no examples have been provided of where they exist locally.

Accordingly, the proposal should be refused based firstly on no assessment being made of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and secondly, in any event a proper analysis of the proposal reveals they would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

D2 4

Listed Building

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that: -

"for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regards to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

Again, in line with the advice in paragraph 189 of the NPPF (quoted above), the application is expected to demonstrate through a Heritage Statement the potential impact of the proposal on the listed buildings and settings in the vicinity of the site. The Heritage Statement that accompanies the application again, fails to do so . Apart from identifying the listed buildings in the locality i.e. properties on Woodland Terrace, there is no analysis of the impact ofthe proposal on the setting ofthe listed buildings.

At present due to the single storey nature of the existing garages, it has limited impact on the setting of these listed buildings. The introduction of a ' two ' storey dwelling in the form proposed together with the materials listed above would represent a building which is out of context with the traditional ten·ace. The proposed dwelling would produce ajaning impact with the character ofthe listed tenace and would damage the symmetry of the terrace. Accordingly, we are firmly of the view that the proposal should be refused due to its adverse impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings, namely Woodland Terrace etc.

Biodiversity

As stated above, the application is lacking a Biodiversity Statement to asce1tain if any protected species are present within the site pa1ticularly given that the garages are to be demolished. Local residents are aware of bats in the area and they could be using the site to roost etc. As bats are a European protected species, we would have expected the requisite surveys to be carried out to ascetiain their presence or not. Accordingly, in the absence of such surveys, the application should be refused.

Loss of Trees

As stated above, no Tree Impact Statement has been submitted with the application.

Indeed, the answer to Question 11 on the application form regarding trees and hedges, is "no" which is incorrect. Whilst there may not be any trees on the application site, there are existing trees adjacent to the site which will be impacted by the proposed development. As already stated, the site lies within a Conservation Area and all trees with a trunk diameter of 75mm when measured at 1.5m above the ground are protected. It is apparent from a site view and the photographs that accompany the application, that the canopies of sunounding trees cover a significant area of the site. The trees include great willows and firs. The trees would need to be cut back as patt of the proposed development but no assessment is provided. Fmthermore, no details are provided with regards the construction methods to be used for the proposed dwelling. There are no doubt tree roots beneath the site and these will be damaged as a result of the proposed development. All of the proposed work would

D2 5

damage these existing trees with a result they would subsequently die and need to be removed. This would result in a loss of the verdant character to the Conservation Area. Furthermore, as stated above bats may be roosting in these trees and a survey needs to be prepared which indicates whether they are using the trees and the garages as roosts.

Accordingly, the proposal should be refused due to a lack of Tree Impact Statement to assess the impact of the proposal on existing trees in the Conservation Area.

Car Parking Provision

The application proposes a 3 bedroom dwelling with sufficient space for 1 car parking space within the site's cmiilage. The Council's cunent car parking standards requires an average of at least 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Fmihermore, there should be space for visitors off road which is not provided. Accordingly, the proposals do not comply with the Council's standards and the site lies within an area where there is a residents parking pe1mit scheme operating with severe pressure on street car parking. Accordingly, the proposal provides insufficient car parking and would result in demand for additional on street car parking in an area which already has a high demand for car parking.

Impact on Living Condition of Adjoining Residents

The submitted Design, Access & Heritage Statement states that the proposal is for a building of modest height. However as stated at the beginning of this letter, the applicants have not provided sufficient information to understand the 'true' impact of the proposal on the sunounding prope1iies. At the outset, the existing garages are single storey and have no pmiicular impact in terms of scale, height and mass on the living conditions of sunounding residents. This is unlike the proposed dwelling which is for a two storey dwelling and not a one and a half storey dwelling as suggested in the description of development. The lack of adequate cross sections of the proposed development which shows the development's impact on adjoining propetiies does not enable a proper analysis of the impact of the proposal to be undetiaken. However, what is apparent is:-

1. Given the height of the sunounding prope1iies there is a potential overlooking issue from them into the proposed dwelling by viliue of the height of these residential properties i.e. 3 and 4 storeys and the ability to look down into the prope1iy and into habitable rooms.

11. Given the tight urban grain of the area, the impact ofthe two storey element ofthe proposal is that it will result in a building of up to 4.8m high excluding roof (7m to apex) on the boundary of two existing properties and 1.5m higher on the Auburn Road boundary. Given the height of the proposed dwelling together with the width of the building it would be overbearing on adjoining gardens to the detriment of residents' enjoyment by reason of loss of daylight and sunlight. The submission of a sunlight and daylight analysis would demonstrate the detrimental impact of the proposal.

iii. There will be loss of privacy to adjoining residents by viliue ofthe position ofthe first floor bedroom windows and the distance to habitable rooms in adjoining propetiies.

D2 6

Overlooking will occur with a corresponding loss of privacy to a number of adjoining residential prope1ties. Accordingly, the submission of cross sections will demonstrate this impact.

The mtist impressions that have been prepared clearly demonstrate that the proposed dwelling will result in a building that will be an overbearing impact and result in the loss of sunlight and daylight to residential gardens. These spaces (more than ever) are valuable green spaces for local residents which will become darker and indeed damper as a result of the height, length and position of the dwelling. It will result in the area becoming less attractive for family use and enjoyment with a corr-esponding loss of enjoyment to this amenity.

In view of the above, the proposed development would result in a severe impact to the living conditions of nearby residents by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing.

Conclusion

We trust that all of the above objections will be taken into consideration in the dete1mination of this application. We would again reiterate our request that the planning officer visit 13 Aubum Road to asce1tain the full impact of the proposal on the objectors. We would also request that the application be refused for the following reasons: -

1. There is insufficient infmmation with the application to enable a proper assessment to be carried out. The application should include a detailed Heritage Impact Assessment, Tree Repmt, Ground Conditions Repmt together with the necessary additional plans including a topography survey and cross sections of the site with adjoining prope1ties;

11. The proposal would result in a development which is out of character and appearance with the sunounding area which includes the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings in Woodland Terrace by reason of its scale, height, mass, design and materials;

111. The proposal would result in the loss of a number of significant trees which would adversely affect the verdant character and appearance of the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area;

1v. The proposed development would result in a form of development which has insufficient car parking and would result in additional demand for on street car parking in an area of high demand and would be detrimental to highway safety;

v. The proposed development would result in a detrimental impact to the living conditions of local residents by reason of its height, size, scale, and position; and

v1. The proposed development by reason of its height, mass and position would be over dominant and result in a loss of light which would affect the living conditions of local residents and in particular the enjoyment of their private garden.

D2 7

If you would like any additional information then do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully

r'J...~-----··· ·

#~ D2 Planning Limited

Enc

D2 8

I own four of the flats within 26 Westfield Park (known as Broomwell Lodge -namelyFlats 1 ,3, 4 & 5) which are each currently let out.

As such the proposed development will directly border each of my properties.

I share the concerns that have been set out in the submissions of many other neighbours that theproposed development will have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties (including thefour I own)

The height of the development will impact upon both light and privacy.

It will also have an adverse effect upon the quiet enjoyment of the communal gardens at 26Westfield Park.

The proposed building is too big and completely out of character for this part of Redlandwhich is a Conservation Area.only the visually blind, architecturally illiterate and morally bankruptwould pass this application

My wife and I object to this application because :1 - One and a half storeys is too tall. There would be a loss of privacy for too many neighbours onAuburn Road, Redland Park, Woodland Terrace and Westfield Park.2 - We are all aware of the "foot in the door" tactic whereby this gets agreed and subsequently theapplicant tries for more, bigger and more intrusive. We fear such escalation.3 - This is a conservation area. We are all in a biodiversity crisis. It might not be in any of yourguidance documents but it is all connected. The current garages are quiet and provide animportant corridor and haven for wildlife. Agreeing this would create another blockage putting evenmore pressure on creatures that need our help not obstruction.4 - There are three big trees between the property and no. 26 Westfield Park, two firs and a goatwillow. The goat willow especially is rare, and all three provide a significant enhancement to thearea, as well as nesting and shelter for birds who would have nowhere else if these trees wereeither felled or lopped. On a previous application for the rear of 24 Westfield Park, yourdepartment amended the application to spare a prince of India tree for the same reason so itwould be consistent to preserve these three.Please keep the property as garages, or if you absolutely must allow a conversion to residential,make it a bungalow, please.

Dear Sir, I wish to object to the planning proposal for a one -half storey dwelling at the Yard. Two points are valid. The first is that the valuable facility of seven garages would be lost within the parking zone. The second is that experience shows that there is often "planning creep ", enlarging the original design and then reapplying retrospectively after the building has been completed. This happens and there are examples of the flouting of the original applications locally. ( Some were successful). Other than these tangible points, it is a pity that the open nature of the area adjoining Auburn Road and Woodland Terrace would be changed. Mr. R. V. Bevan

To whom it concerns

I live at no 12 Auburn Road and wish to raise my objection to the proposed building on yardWoodland Terrace.

My property is only a few yards from the boundary wall of the the yard, I have lived at no 12 since2002 and have enjoyed the clear unobstructed view to the properties on woodland Terrace frommy back garden will be largely and permanently changed if the proposed building goes ahead. Ialso strongly object to the hight that has been suggested which will be totally dominating from myproperty, it is also not exceptible to have the two full length side windows that are on the side ofthe building and would look directly into my garden as well as directly looking at eye level to mybedroom windows at the back of my property, giving me far less privacy than I have always enjoyand was one of the main reasons I bought my property.

I would also like to point out that the building itself will not be in the keeping of the area, within thearea of Woodland Terrace and Auburn Road there are no modern buildings at all and it has beenas such since the 1900 century, I do not see how it will bring benefit to the area and the residentswho have live here for many years to allow such a building to be erected as it will be an eye sore.

I also would like to point out that the tree line to the boundary will be inevitable affected if theproposed building is build at the height proposed, I am not suggesting that nothing can be built onthe land but it need to be looked at in relation to it's hight and window lay out to ensure that theresidents are not adversely affected to the benefits of the owners of the land.

I very much hope that you will take on board my concerns and ensure that changes are made inthe interests of all of residents.

Yours sincerely

Allan Rosengren

From 12 Auburn Road

From 13 Auburn Road

From 14 Auburn Road

From 14 Auburn Road

From 24 Redland Park

From The Coach House, 26 westfield Park


Our objects are outlined in detail below:

1. Impact on Surrounding areai. The development is 5m higher than current boundary on 2 sides (Westfield Park and Redland park) and 1.5m higher on No.14 Auburn Road. ii. There is a clear view from the South facing bedroom windows into No. 13 and No.12 Auburn rd. iii. All the windows of the development will have an impact with regards to light pollution as the

roof lights will be shining directly up towards the taller, adjacent properties. The kitchen skylights will also drastically increase local noise and lumination to 13 and 14 Auburn Rd which are only 6m away.iv. No overshadowing or sunlight/daylight impact assessment on adjoining properties has been

undertaken.

Images will be supplied via email that show that the proposed development has a significant impact on the views in and around this conservation area.

2. Parking i. We are not convinced the turning space is big enough. It would appear a car cannot actually reverse and then exit. Can these dimensions be verified. The bike store has been relocated to the garden- reducing available garden space to just within allowance. How are these bikes to be transported to the garden. The likelihood is they will remain in the front yard blocking the car turning space.ii. A 6 person house would likely use 2 cars; this would add pressure on local road parking which is already beyond capacity; the imminent development of 25 Redland Park Road into 9 flats will further exacerbate this problem.iii. The potential for 2 flats (as indicated in the plans) would increase parking pressure even more.iv. The statement in the proposal regarding the garage tenants is this:

“At the time when the applicants’ father unfortunately passed away in 2016, there were 3 no. garages rented by local people, 2no. of these people have since moved away from Bristol and moved their vehicles to their new respective new homes. The 3rd garage was rented until October 2019 by a local person who has now moved his vehicle to his own house.”

This statement is untrue; the last tenant was evicted and new tenants have been discouraged since at least 2016 and the garages allowed to fall into disrepair.

v. Loss of 7 garages for the community and parking.vi. We have had 15 enquires to rent/buy garages in the local area which therefore shows high demand for this amenity.vii. Information is required as to the justification and impact the loss of the garages would have before the proposals should be considered.viii. “Access to residential on-street parking with parking permits in place, this is adequate and can be controlled by a planning condition”. This is not adequate; there are often times where parking is not available because of the high density of car owners already in this area. 7 parking spaces would help alleviate that.ix. We have approached the current owners offering to purchase the land for local residents to keep as garages. The offer was refused stating more money could be raised through planning approval.

3. Trees and Hedges. “Are there trees on adjacent land that could be affected. No.”In order to replace the SW wall, prune the trees and lay foundations I think at least two of the trees would end up losing so much of their canopy/roots that their survival would be compromised. This

is a conservation area and no tree report has been undertaken. There exists a delicate ecosystem and these trees play a huge part in this highly populated area.

4. Future development“The site is currently a garage block, and is to be converted into a single dwelling with grounds. In the future, this dwelling could be subdivided into two flats, depending on the future needs of the local area.”The potential for further development on this site if planning is granted is very worrying. There is a high chance the actual buyers will want to alter these plans, including building 2 or more flats or balconies outside of the bedroom windows or onto the flat roof. The current owners have no intention of living in this property and have only assigned consultants to design a building that will pass planning and therefore increase the value of the land. There is no guarantee the new buyers will adhere to these plans.

5. Walls

The plans are not clear how existing walls will be protected nor do they explain how the existing shared boundaries will be used; are they building on top of the existing walls or alongside? If alongside, there needs to be enough access space to allow maintenance and to avoid the build up of debris that would encourage damp.

6. Covenants

The Deeds state that the covenant on this plot was sold in 1963 and that the,

"The Vendors hereby release the Purchaser and his successors in title from all future obligation and liability under and by virtue of the covenants on the part of the Grantee contained in the said Deed of the 28th day of September 1867 so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of being enforced.”

Does this also release the restrictive covenants of the previous owners at 26 Westfield Park and who exactly released these covenants when this land was sold?

26 Westfield park and the adjoining coachhouse have the right to maintain the wall from both sides? How will that be achieved?

7. Allison Court, Apsley Road, Bristol ( 16/06979/F ) was a very similar proposal also located in Whiteladies conservation area. The proposals were objected on grounds which this proposed plan appears to copy:

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale, height, form and overall design and appearance (including materials) would fail to respond appropriately to the surrounding environment and would result in the introduction of an overly prominent, incongruous feature, out of character with surrounding development to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area.

Due to the location and position of windows to habitable rooms and minimal separation distance between properties the proposal would result in detrimental levels of direct and perceived overlooking between the proposed dwelling and residential properties.


My objection is that with such a big wall to the new development I would lose substantial light and view from my house as you can see from the photo attached.And trees would be lost which would not only change the character of the area but also reduce production of oxygen and contrary to reducing pollution.

I wish to object to this Planning Application on the following grounds:

I am a tenant of the First Floor Flat at 6 Woodland Terrace which is adjacent to the proposeddevelopment. Such close proximity to my building means that the new dwelling would directlyoverlook my home leading to a loss of privacy - this is a privacy which I have valued for 17 years.The height of the development would mean that several rooms would have a direct view into mykitchen and living room.

Also, I do not believe the design in any way enhances the surrounding environment - No 6 is aGrade 11 listed building and the appearance of this proposed development is entirely out ofkeeping with the whole of Woodland Terrace.

I also have concerns regarding traffic - currently the end of the street where I live is not heavilyused as there is no vehicular access beyond no 6. Even one or two additional vehicles willincrease traffic noise by a disproportionate amount.

My objections to this development are as follows:

1. It will inevitably mean a considerable loss of light to the surrounding houses in Auburn Road,Woodland Terrace , Redland Park and Westfield Park. It would be extremely close to some ofthese.

2. It will mean a loss of mature trees and their consequent benefit to air quality, the well-being ofresidents and wildlife. A thirty- five year old lapsed Permission is irrelevant in that we now have afar greater understanding now of the importance of trees , gardens and green spaces .

3. It is not in tune with the principles of the established conservation area (adopted in 2011) andthe characterful and attractive late Georgian and Victorian architecture of Auburn Road andWoodland Terrace, in terms of its style or materials.

We would like to register our objection to the proposed build due to the following points:

We are upset about this application due to the squeezing in and infill of a much needed breathingspace in a Conservation area that is already densely developed. Looking at the aerial shot of theplot only emphasises the dominance of the green canopies of the trees which I believe would haveto be so severely pruned and roots cut, that survival would be extremely unlikely.

Bristol is meant to be a green city so anything that would endanger large healthy air cleaning treesand destroy habitat for the amazing wildlife we benefit from in the corridor behind Auburn Roadwould be unforgivable. ( especially as many of our trees are also being killed off by viruses!!)

Also, with much reluctance many of us have had to donate a significant patch of our front gardensfor parking due to the lack of on street parking - the build would only impact on this further.

Being located within a conservation area, the garages are part of the historic development ofRedland and are still in great demand.

We appreciate the council is unde pressure to facilitate any proposed builds to meet nationaltargets however, the impact of this build, together with type, location and further adding to the highlevel of inner city pollution, does not seem aligned with council policy.

Lastly, we feel for the properties that would be the immediate neighbours and are on three out ofthe four boundaries, it will have a massive and unfair impact on their outlook.

Andy and Vicki Savage

Objection to proposed planning application

Dear Sirs/Madame,

I wish to object to the application for planning permission as outlined in planning application20/01535/F on a number of grounds. I am the resident and owner of Flat 7 Redland court at 24Redland Park.

Firstly, the planning application refers to a "one-half storey" dwelling when in fact, the proposedbuild would be two storeys over much of the build. As a ground floor flat, this will significantly alterthe view from my property with a particular impact on the private garden space to the rear of myproperty. In addition, the height of the proposed build would take a large amount of natural lightaway from my garden and outdoor space as well as numerous other surrounding properties. Thiswould also detract from the clearly established aesthetic of the surrounding buildings, many ofwhich are grade II listed buildings for which this area of Bristol is famous. Any more than a onestorey build would cut into the clearly delineated line of sight created by the existing properties inthe area.

Secondly, the proposed build exists in an established conservation area and resultant works wouldinterfere with/lead to the removal of existing trees. This is particularly true of the tree situated inthe southwest corner of the plot which would need extensive alteration.

Thirdly the proposed build represents a change of use for the land in question. Although theplanning application states the garages are no longer being used this is due to them having been

unavailable to anyone other than the current owners. In fact, prior to the current owners inheritingthe property, the previous owner was renting the garages out to the local community. There issignificant demand in this area for further off-street parking and garage space and many of thelocal residents would be interested in buying/renting them should they become available again.With the re-development of the Nursing Home on Redland Park into 9 flats (most of which will be 2car households) the demand for off-street parking/storage is only going to increase further and assuch retaining the land in its original purpose is of relevance here.

Although previous planning on this plot was granted this was 35 years ago and considerationshave changed significantly since then. I would draw particular reference to potential environmentalimpacts brought about by over-crowding, removal of existing trees, increased pollution andchanges to the natural habitat of many species of wildlife in the area.

I believe the owners have no intention to live in the proposed dwelling and are intending to sell theland once planning has been granted. This proposal serves only to increase the potential value ofthe land thus driving other prices up and compromising the quality of the Redland area as a whole.

We live at No1 Auburn Road, BS6 6LS. While the proposed development doesn'timpact directly on our property it would affect our enjoyment of the amenities of this conservationarea.

We are aware there will be significant impact on our friends and neighbours living closer to 'ThePlot', and we are in sympathy with their specific objections.However, there are considerations which will impact on ourselves and our wider neighbourhood,

Considerations and objections:

1 Conservation relating to buildings and the built environment.

2 Conservation relating to the natural environment.

3 Garages.

1 Bristol Development Core Strategy Policy BCS 22 states that development proposals will:safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of acknowledged importanceincluding:a) Historic buildings both nationally and locally listed andb) Conservation areas.

Auburn Road and Woodland Terrace are within a Conservation area, the former being 19th.Chousing and the latter a Grade 2 listed late Georgian Terrace. We suggest that the proposedbuilding will neither 'safeguard or enhance' the existing area. The house will be of brick

construction, with wooden cladding and a standing seam zinc roof. We do not think this in keepingwith the rendered Victorian homes or the stone faced Terrace. We think it would detract from,rather than complement, the surrounding important historic buildings.From the description on the plan it would appear the house would nestle comfortably within thesetting, but on closer study it would be quite tall and would jar uncomfortably, filling the plot andimposing on neighbours.

2 Conservation relating to the natural environment.

The gardens of Auburn Road form a natural green corridor running behind the houses, withmature trees adjacent to 'The Plot'. These trees provide a significant canopy and habitat. We thinkthere is potential for serious damage to be done to the trees when they are pruned and reduced asplanned. Loss of canopy to the largest could compromise its survival. The loss of such a treewould be significant to the area.The green corridor is home to many birds, small mammals, foxes and is used by a huntingsparrow hawk, and bats on summer evenings. Indeed it is a big part of our"Distinctive neighbourhood, helping to define the city's appeal to both residents and visitors" asvalued by Bristol City Council.The conservation of these pockets of natural life is very important for animals and for the wellbeingof people.

3 Garages.It is very unfortunate that the existing garages have not been maintained as a valuable amenity forresidents to rent. More off street parking in designated areas, at affordable cost, could mean fewercars on the street and greener front gardens.

ConclusionOur general observation is that the design of the proposed development is not fitting for thishistoric location and does not match the Intentions of the City Plan.There is a serious risk of damage, or even loss, to nearby trees and subsequently to insects, birdsand mammals.The loss of this site as outlined, and one which has a certain local historic charm, will diminish theenjoyment of the area for visitors and residents.

We therefore request that planning consent is refused.

We are writing as a directly adjacent neighbour to the proposed plans for the demolitionof existing garages and proposed one-half storey dwelling at Yard Woodland Terrace Bristol BS69UD (Application number 20/01535/F). Our family home at 14 Auburn Road, BS6 6LS will begreatly affected by the proposed building being constructed less than 5m from our property.

Our objections to the proposal are on the following grounds:1) Loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing of our home2) Loss of light for our home3) Loss of view4) Out of character with local Conservation Area5) Accuracy of statement one-half storey dwelling6) No precedence of similar erected buildings along the intersection of Auburn and BramfordTerrace7) Lack of supply of garages in the local area8) Potential Impact on adjacent trees

1) Loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing of our homeOur property is in the closest proximity to the proposal. We strongly believe that the proposal hasunacceptable levels of overbearing features that will result in reduced privacy, increased noise,disturbance and overshadowing Specific points to support our objection are as follows:

- The kitchen wall of the proposal adjoins to our garden wall and will protrude 1.5m above theheight of our garden wall by 4m in length. This 6m2 area coupled with a further 1.5m chimney willall be less than 5m from our kitchen window

- The first level bedroom window will be only 13.4m from our neighbouring window- We object to the height of the proposal as it will significantly increase the overlooking of ourhome and garden. The oversized widows of the two non master bedrooms will overlook all fourlevels of our property. We do not deem the building to be 'moderately sized' as stated in theapplication as a significant proportion materially exceeds the heights of the boundary walls.

2) Loss of light for our homeThe plans of the proposal show a height of 7m to the apex of the roof and 15m in length. Withsuch close proximity to our building (detailed in the above point), this will inevitably result in asignificant loss of light and affect our right of light enjoyed by our property. This is a private rightthat has been acquired during our time in our property.

3) Loss of viewIt is often said that "there is no right to a view". Whilst this is correct in strictly legal terms, it doesnot mean that the loss of a view is necessarily irrelevant to planning. The enjoyment of a view isan important part of the residential amenity of our property, and its loss will therefore have anadverse impact.

In addition, the National Planning Policy states the setting and views into and out of aConservation Area should be safeguarded (NPPF February 2019). The views of the surroundingproperties on Auburn Road, Bramford Terrace, Woodland Terrace and Redland Park will begreatly affected.

4) Out of character with local Conservation AreaPolicy BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy Policy refers to the safeguardand preservation of heritage assets including conservation areas. The proposed development isout of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity ofWoodland Terrace and Auburn Road and would result in an intrusion on the conservation area.

5) Accuracy of statement 'one-half storey dwelling'Whereas we have not been able to research a conclusive definition of a 'one-half storey dwelling',we would request that adherence is carefully checked as part of the application process.

6) No precedence of similar buildings along the borderline of Auburn Road and Bramford TerraceThe geography along the North to South dividing border of Auburn Road and Bramford Terraceare gardens from both streets that back onto each other divided by the original brick walls. Thereis no precedence along this borderline for the proposal to draw upon and it will be out of characterwith the rest of the dividing border.

7) Lack of supply of garages in the local areaThe yard currently has the functionality for off-road parking and storage for 7 vehicles. Not all ofthe garages are currently occupied, however this is a choice of the current owner rather than need

and demand for off street parking. We are aware of numerous inhabitants who have looked to rentor buy a garage in the area but there is a material lack of supply. If garages continue to bedemolished to increase the value of the land, this can only result in increased demand for on streetparking. This is at odds with the strategy to reduce on street parking which is an aim of BristolCouncil.

8) Potential Impact on adjacent treesThe canopies of the surrounding trees covers a significant area of the site of the proposal. Therequirement to cut such a large proportion of the tree would likely cause lasting damage. Withthese trees residing in a conservation area and being of good specimen (Goats Willow), carefulconsideration will be required. All trees in a conservation area with a trunk diameter of 75mmwhen measured at 1.5m above the ground are protected. Goats Willow are fantastic trees forwildlife providing food not just for bees, but also for moth caterpillars, and as shelter for bats, smallmammals and birds.We also believe the answer of 'no' in the application form to the below question is inaccurate:'Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influencethe development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?'

Yours,Simon Redpath and Joleen Keizer

Objection to 20/01535/F I object to the planned development for the following reasons: 1. I have a party wall between myself and the proposed development. The building works adjoining the boundary line would require a Line of Junction Notice under the Party Wall Act. There needs to be a surveyor appointed that is acting solely on my behalf. There would need to be a party wall agreement. There seems to be no mention of this. Yet in Design and Access Statement it mentions development being set away from 25 Westfield Park but nothing about my property at The Coach House, 26 Westfield Park. 2. Will there be any windows overlooking my garden and property? It seems unclear in the plans. 3. The facing wall in my garden will change from about 2.4m to 4.8m plus a pitched roof. A 4.8m high wall will be very imposing in my small garden and cut out light from my property. 4. If this planning is approved, I will have two major developments on two sides of my property at the same time ( ref 20/00242/F and 20/00261/F ). This would involve very substantial long term building work inches away from my boundary walls. Meri Rizk

I would like to object to the planning application to for the reasons detailed below.

In Short:

Alter character of the area, unsympathetic infill, loss of space between properties. (protectedConservation area)

Precedence for continued development in the area (land / garden grabbing), further changing thecharacter and increasing strain local infrastructure.

I believe the development will not be carried out by the current owners of the land it will be soldwith planning in place. Once a precedence is set there is no guarantee that the eventual developerwill not look to make changes that will further alter the character of the area. (Conservation Area)

Change of use, loss of amenity (parking, garages)Strain on existing amenities.

Loss of view (the proposed development does not follow theexisting building lines established in the area) the view from the lower floors of Redland courtdown Westfield Park and Auburn Rd will be reduced or obscured), loss of light, and privacy due tothe height of the property. This may be exacerbated if further changes are sought by the eventualdeveloper.

Reducing the size or removal of existing trees. This may be exacerbated if further changes are

sought by the eventual developer.

Detail:

Loss of light and outlook form 24 Redland Park. All the properties in the surrounding area are Ibelieve mid and late Victorian; the street patterns have been maintained as has the design andcharacter of the buildings. This property will neither be sympathetic in design nor will it follow thepattern of the existing buildings. The area is a long-standing conservation area where thecharacter should be maintained. This property in my opinion is not in keeping with that objective.

The existing buildings 7 no garages are low level and do not detract from the visual appearance ofthe area. Although the Design, Access & Heritage Statement refers to the property as one-halfstory dwelling the other document describe the property as a two-storey property which I wouldsay is more accurate. Part of the first and the second storey will be visible above the boundarywall of 24 Redland Park which will obscure the existing view from my property and the clean linesof the existing Victorian properties in Westfield Park and Auburn Rd. There will also be somereduction in the natural light, potential loss of privacy.

The proposal also details the cutting back of the tree to the SW side of the plot which again willsignificant alter the outlook from my property. Careful consideration should be given to the cuttingof any trees with a diameter greater that 75mm and a high of 1.5m. As the canopy currently covershalf the area required to construct the property the tree will need to be cut to an extent that maycompromise its viability. This will also impact the privacy of the other properties adjacent to theplot. Compromising the viability of existing trees is a method that can be deployed to mitigate theprotection afforded to existing vegetation.

The DA&H Statement refers to the garages no longer being used or required and although Iaccept that they are not being regularly used I would disagree that they are no longer required.Parking is a problem in the area as is traffic congestion. There is little available off-road parkingand the conversion of front gardens to parking is highlighted in the councils Character Appraisal ofthe area as an issue. The yards current use facilities the off-road parking and storage for 7novehicles, change of use removes this facility. The garages may not be currently occupied which isdown to availability rather than need. I for one have looked to rent or buy a garage in the area butnone are available. If we keep demolishing garages to increase the value of the land, they are builton we only increase the demand for on street parking. The reduction of on street parking is astated aim of Bristol Council and this application would seem to be at odd with this ambition. If theowners made the garages available, they could be returned to productive use and generate anincome.

Parking in the area is a huge problem why would we convert a site which is designed for thispurpose or as storage for local trades people etc. The area lacks this type of facility.

Although there is provision for the parking of one car off road it is likely that the owners off aproperty of this size will have more than one vehicle which will put further stain of the availableparking in the area.

There are ongoing conversions of large Victorian buildings in the area into flats. The moreresidences we create the more vehicles we will need to accommodate. Most dwellings attractmore than one vehicle. This proposal reduces parking in the area by 7 possibly more spaces andincreases demand putting additional strain of the fragile infrastructure. It also detracts from theareas aesthetics with a building that is out of place in design (area is wholly mid to late Victorian)and location. The change of use of this site which set a dangerous precedence for more land to begrabbed for development. Squeezing more residential property into the area changes its uniquecharacter which is the reason it was designated a conservation area. Continually infilling anyavailable plot is not sustainable.

The proposal states that the existing telegraph pole is to be moved but there is no detail as towhere this is to be sighted this may also affect the current view from my property. The current poleis mature and covered with ivy which fits in with the outlook.

I would also like to highlight the 375mm Sewer to the rear of 24 Redland Park which entersWoodland Terrace and the corner of the plot. I am surprised the is no easement, but this may bedue to the age of the sewer. If the 3m cover is from ground level in Redland Park, then the coverwill be reduced on the plot. There is no detail in the proposal as to how this will be protected oraccommodated to avoid damage or interruption.

Although there was planning granted on the site in 1985 the criteria that needs to be consideredwill have changed significantly in 35 years as will the pressures on local infrastructure andguidance on the protection of the character of designated conservation areas. I am not sure whythis would be relevant to the current proposal.

The DA&H Statement refers to adjusting the proposal after initial comments where received fromthe Pre-Application Response. Until the letter of the 16th April 2020 I was unaware of any proposalhad I been I would have raised my concerns then.

I wish to object to this Planning Application on the following grounds.1) I am the owner of 6 Woodland Terrace which is adjacent to the proposed development and assuch its close proximity means that it directly overlooks No 6 with a resulting loss of privacy for theresidents in the Ground and First Floor Flats.2) No 6 is a traditional and Grade 11 listed building and it is my belief that all of the other houses inthe Terrace are also "listed",so the architectural design of this new and modern building willwithout doubt be out of character/appearance with the remainder of the Terrace. It will certainly beaesthetically unacceptable.3) I am not sure of the building materials that are to be used in its construction, but I would like toremind you that all of the houses in Woodland Terrace are fronted with Bath Stone.

This proposed development is in a conservation area and is surrounded by Victorianhouses. These flats would not be in keeping, either in position or construction.

Presently this land has garages on it. These do not spoil the view as they are unobtrusive. The siteshould not be used for housing which would be out of character with the surrounding area.

Good afternoon, we received the invitation to comment on the above planning application, dated 16th April, 2020. Having looked at the application documents, we the owners and residents of No 5 Woodland Terrace, Redland, Bristol BS6 6LR, would like to register our objection to the application. Whilst we can see the proposed design will be an interesting and sustainable addition to our housing stock and that similar modern designs are being built in the neighbourhood (e.g. Lower Redland Road, corner of Elliston Road) we would argue that its overall look is a distinct contrast to the Grade II listed Woodland Terrace. It jars much more than the other examples. However, our main objections are on its intrusions to our privacy in No 5 Woodland Terrace. The text of the application describes it as a building of modest height but the various elevation drawings make clear that within the context of the current garage plot, all three of the first floor bedrooms will overlook a number of existing homes, including ours. All these rooms face directly onto Woodland Terrace and are significantly higher than the current existing boundary wall. I feel the privacy that we have enjoyed in our home, for so long, in both the front living room and our main bedroom will be significantly compromised. All three bedrooms and the ground floor sitting room are, in effect, 'pointing' into our home. People living in the proposed house will naturally be led to view our home as they look out. Whilst other existing homes behind the garage yard site, look over toward our street, they are of

such a distance the intrusion is not significant. This will feel very intrusive. I also gently challenge the motivation of the applicants. This is not an example of long standing owners deciding to build a 'forever home' for themselves in a neighbourhood they are closely affiliated with but of the recent estate owners maximising their profit. We have chatted to them and their application for planning is designed to make the plot of land more saleable rather than create a legacy of interesting homes in Redland. We are not against a bit of profit but for us, this then leads onto the risk of it being purchased by another developer who will then push for an even more intensive and larger development. The garages used to be used to store classic cars that owners would do up. It used to be a nice corner of activity and hobby. Having that facility continue might be a good thing. Best regards John and Irene McGoldrick