see detail see below under DM 26/27.

Will it suit a) the normal convenience of surrounding homes' occupants, their customs, habits and existing privacies and b) provide adequate parking facilities for the purposes of the building, facilitating easy and safe access/egress for a huge increase in vehicles?a) Given the height of 3 storeys, well above that of all the other 2 storeyed houses in that row and the overall size of the two adjacent homes as a block, that penetrates much further into the plot than does the existing house, the design encourages intrusion into the privacy of present neighbours, in particular the smaller private plots in Beverley Gardens b) It is very difficult to see how this can happen in any way, given that the space allowed for in the application will not be sufficient to provide parking for all the possible cars visiting these houses, which will cause overspill onto Canford Lane itself just before a very dangerous bend in the road, thus adding to the already blind sight of oncoming traffic. It is likely also that there will be constant access and egress to and from the site in unusual numbers, by both owners, their families and their visitors. As stated, the site is very close to one of the most dangerous blind bends in the area* and is the last place that should be adding to vehicular activity in that spot. *Reference here can be made to a planning application made a few years ago for the addition of 3 houses in the garden of 'The Hermitage'- a landmark building on Westbury Road (now listed by English heritage) in addition to conversion of the house itself into 4 flats. The number of cars generated would have been roughly equivalent to the numbers here. One of the reasons for refusal of the application was this very problem- an almost hidden entrance onto a very busy stretch of road into Bristol, where access and egress is at a crucially dangerous and narrow part of Westbury Road opposite to Badminton School.2 Local character and layout and form: Does this design accommodate Bristol's present policies for a) DM 26: Local character and distinctiveness and b) DM 27: Layout and form?a) While respecting the need to have examples of contemporary design and innovative 21st century architecture, that can sometimes be placed justifiably in amongst existing traditional designs, this application proposes a new building without any particular distinguishing features in its exterior architecture, because the emphasis is on what it provides in the interior in terms of leisure pursuits and bedroom accommodation for a large number of people. It is a service building rather than one contributing something in visual appeal to enliven the landscape.It does not therefore contribute anything in distinctiveness to the existing street scene, or to enhancing the character of the neighbourhood, or which would justify demolition of the existing house that represents a particular period of suburban development. Rather, it is intrusive to the existing pattern of houses of the early 20th century, all set well back from the road and surrounded by extensive green plots of varied gardens and many trees. By its height of three storeys it breaks the roofline of that row and by crowding its ancillary buildings (garages?) up against the frontage of the plot, it disrupts the building rhythm of that whole side of Canford Lane.b) The layout and footprint of the design is far greater than any other in that area and occupying, as it does, a very substantial amount of the extensive garden despite having additional underground rooms for swimming and cinema activities, it is a massive

overdevelopment of the site and capable of gross intrusion into the lives of surrounding neighbours.Both 'homes' appear to lack a full and comprehensive range of domestic offices, which would be expected in houses of this size and accommodation. The cooking areas for example are minimal with breakfast bars but no 'utility' facilities. This gives rise to a speculation that these 'homes' are not intended for normal working life, but rather for specialist entertaining-with possibly outside catering for parties and just breakfast facilities for overnight guests? Are we to surmise then, that this is more in the nature of a private 'hotel' for use by wedding parties and having two halves, for related families for special gatherings?3 Conclusions: While presenting an interesting variation in the normal patterns of suburban living, this building does not fit the character of this area, not only in its architectural massing and unwelcoming design but also for the proposed activities inappropriate to the immediate neighbourhood and should therefore be rejected for this particular site.Canford Lane itself represents a distinctive period in the sub-urban designs of the early to mid -20th century, and the adjacent Coombe Lane also has many houses of the early 20th century 'mood' and landscape. The whole area is an important part of Bristol's history and while capable of modern adaptations and modest additions on larger plots, it should be respected for what it is and can still provide, in the domestic scene for family homes. This case is similar to that of 72 Coombe Lane, just round the corner from 334 Canford Lane, which came up in 2004. It concerned a handsome Arts and Crafts period house of substantial proportions where the owner and a developer proposed demolition and replacement with a block of 14, 2no bedroom, flats. This would have caused an intrusion into a row of Edwardian houses of similar size and character, with associated multi activity, loss of privacy and overlooking for neighbours, and traffic flow problems onto Coombe Lane similar to those indicated above. The application was rejected by Bristol's planning dept. and this was subsequently upheld by the inspectorate on appeal, who echoed the judgements of the planning officer** in saying that the flats would intrude into the landscape and alter character of an established area.A final comment is to query whether this is a disguised attempt to introduce a semi private commercial venture into a suburban housing area? If not that, the whole plan appears to be so idiosyncratic that it can be subject to the criticism: that either or both of the 'houses' would not present viable sales to future residents by their very nature and could become 'White Elephants' - subsequently each needing demolition or radical adaptation for a more average style of domestic residence.** Mr Martin Seaton: planning officer in 2004: advising and recommending rejection of the application to demolish 72 Coombe Lane, replacing it with a block of 14 flats wrote:-"1 The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, bulk, massing, and detailed layout and design, fails to respect the grain and context of the local area and consequently represents an incongruous and inappropriate form of development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene…."2" The proposed replacement building would as a result of its position and bulk on the site, have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties….These comments relate to policies extant at the time in the unrevised Bristol Plan but are nevertheless just as relevant today in light of the Bristol Core Strategy which replaced it in 2009. They provide a more than adequate summary of objections to this

present application No 20/02002/F, which should be refused on similar grounds.Hilary Long pp The Westbury on Trym Society

CPRE South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District is concerned that this applicationrepresents yet another threat to the Green Infrastructure of this area of Bristol, while failing topresent a proposal which would enhance the character of the area, or provide any benefit to thecommunity or to biodiversity.Whatever the sustainability credentials of the built form of the proposed development it fails tocomply with BCS21 of the Core Strategy ( "Development in Bristol will be expected to ...Contributepositively to an area's character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness") and withpolicies DM21: Development of Private Gardens, DM26:Local Character and Distinctiveness andDM27:Layout and Form, of the SA&DMP, because in no way does the proposed developmentcontribute to the area's character, nor reinforce local distinctiveness, while the development of thefront and rear gardens also result in harm to green infrastructure and to the character of the area.The scheme represents overdevelopment of the site and a possible threat to residential amenity ofneighbours.Policy DM21 (Development of Private Gardens) outlines that private garden space makes animportant contribution to the city's green infrastructure. In all cases, any development of gardenland should not result in harm to the character and appearance of an area. The proposed houseswill result in the loss of garden land, and more specifically of several trees, some of which appearto have been removed prior to a previous application and not been replaced. The Bristol TreeForum Tree Champion in her submission has outlined a number of queries about the arboriculturalsurvey, which we would also like to see addressed satisfactorily. Apart from the correct applicationof the Bristol Tree Replacement Strategy in accordance with DM17, we are also concerned thatexisting trees are properly protected during construction work and that the monitoring of suchprotection is made a condition if permission were to be granted. There have been various

examples locally recently where developers have failed to protect existing trees duringdevelopment.There is no reference in the documentation to biodiversity net gain as a result of the development,there is only mention of "rock hewn sunken gardens with pools and waterfalls". Given our growingappreciation as a nation of the value of nature to our future wellbeing, now is the time to make thisa high priority when considering planning applications. The application documents include a copyof the Council's Climate Change and Sustainability Practice Note (December 2012) whichsuggests that a sustainability statement for a development proposal could include how suchopportunities for net gain as bird or bat boxes could be included in the scheme and indigenousand nut or fruit bearing trees and bushes could be specified in landscaping designs. It would havebeen highly desirable to see this in the present application.Policy DM26 states that development will not be permitted where it would be harmful to localcharacter and distinctiveness, or where it would fail to take the opportunities available to improvethe character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The application strangely states inthe Design and Access statement that "The site presents a rare opportunity to create a pair ofsubstantial houses reminiscent of the Bristol Merchant Tradition". We are not aware that anyhouses in this area of Bristol reference this so called "Merchant Tradition". In fact the proposedstark angular design is completely out of character with the neighbouring buildings. The built formis domineering and the building line represented by the block of garages is too close to the frontboundary and in the photomontage presents an intrusive block construction when viewed from theroad. The application is therefore also contrary to DM27 on layout and form. It is also unclear whyit is deemed necessary to demolish an existing family house which is so obviously in characterwith its neighbours, and which was not intended to be demolished in previous granted applicationsto extend the dwelling space on this plot of land.Finally we are concerned about the possible cumulative effect of this development, with itsallocation of 13 parking spaces, were it to go ahead, if the proposal for the demolition of the housenearby at 6 Dingle Road and its replacement with 6 dwellings is also granted planning permission,both in terms of loss of green infrastructure and increase in traffic levels. It seems there would bea considerable increase in the volume of traffic generated both by residents and by vehiclesservicing the various new properties along this stretch which is characterised by bends in the roadwhich limit visibility for drivers.We therefore consider that the extant planning permissions for this site are sufficient to satisfy anyperceived need for increased housing density in this area and that the current application shouldbe refused for the reasons outlined above.

I am objecting to this application on behalf of the trees and on behalf of the Bristol TreeReplacement Standard - both its actual numbers and to its implementation as a policy.

As such I have some questions and some assertions.

Are the measurements correct following the lapse of time between the survey (April 2017 - 3 yearsago) and this latest application? We ask the Tree Officer to check all the assertions as to size. Forexample - T16 could now merit 3 replacements. It would only have needed have grown ever solittle to merit 3 replacements - not 2.

How has the condition of the tree to be felled "for good arboricultural practice" changed between2017 when it was OK, with up to 10 years life in it, and 2020, when it is supposed not to be OKand thus not good enough to be included in the count of trees for the BTRS? Only 3 years of its 10years have elapsed and those 7 years have a replacement value. It should be noted that this is alarge'ish tree and would require 4 replacements.We ask the Tree Officer to check the assertions as to tree conditions, especially for the onealleged to require felling anyhow. How realistic is it to accept that this tree requires felling andwould have been felled even if there was not a development in the offing? Seems probable to methat this tree too is to be felled to facilitate development, and thus should be counted for treereplacement purposes.

The British Standard for the erection of protective fencing is not one devised for the convenienceof developers. It is rather for the protection of trees - that should not be a surprise. It is not there to

be amended to suit developers. Developers should change their plans to suit the trees, or deviseanother method - which might be more expensive - to protect the trees. Or find another route orlayout. Few people appreciate the huge importance of trees. We are enduring a Climate Change.We have an environmental crisis happening now. We have to keep trees, despite development.We have to protect those we have from the dire effects of development, so that they survive whatdevelopers throw at them - hence the British Standards, which are not there for the bending.

And the 12 trees previously removed should be included in the tree count for BTRS as perimplementation of BTRS policy. We see too much of this - get rid of the trees if at all possible andthen make the application.

I ask the Tree Officer to 1) check the measurements and conditions of these trees, because I thinkthat Bristol deserves more replacements, and to 2) require the implementation of tree protectionstandards for retained trees and to 3) include previously removed trees in the assessment for treereplacement provision.

I am concerned that crossing the road will become more dangerous as there are likelyto be more cars parked on an already dangerous bend . I will be walking my one yeargranddaughter from her house opposite this dwelling and feel the road will become moredangerous to cross .

Bristol Civic Society considers the proposal to be an over-development of the site. Theproposal is inconsistent with the street scene in terms of both height and mass. It would overbearthe immediately neighbouring properties. A more modest, two storey development would fit inbetter with the predominant character of the neighbourhood.

Bristol Civic Society considers the proposal to be an over-development of the site. Theproposal is inconsistent with the street scene in terms of both height and mass. It would overbearthe immediately neighbouring properties. A more modest, two storey development would fit inbetter with the predominant character of the neighbourhood.

In addition to the above comments, the Society is concerned that the proposal would generate asignificant number of vehicle movements into and out of the site at a difficult point on CanfordLane. The road safety implications of this should be fully assessed.

We object for may reasons:1 There would be a sight line directly from the upper floors to our bedrooms and we would sufferfrom a loss of privacy.2 16 bedrooms is potentially 32 people, there would be unwelcome sound and light pollution to thearea, especially with the roof terraces3 32 people, with potentially 32 cars would mean insufficient parking space on site, so there wouldbe overspill parking on the main road, close to a bend and close the the entrance of Blaise estate.With lots of children and dog walkers in this proximity and the existing hazards ( regular temporaryspeed cameras are parked close to the site), this is an increased risk to the safety of all , not tomention the increased risk of so many people driving out of the site onto Canford Lane.4 The area has an identity synonymous with trees , nature and green. The size and scale of theproposed site is invasive to this.Removal or damage to trees is totally unacceptable ( there are Cat A and Cat B trees here)Furthermore, added concrete and less green may affect the drainage in the area.5 The design is more urban than suburban.6 Bristol is supposed to have a reputation as a 'green thinking' city. Where is the justification indemolishing a beautiful period building? Why 'fix' something which isn't broken and robs the areaof it's history and heritage?7 Anyone monitoring the planning proposals on this site would notice that the revisions becomemore and more invasive to the community on each iteration.- size, scale etc The change frompresently 3 people and 2 dogs , to potentially 32 people is hugely significant. If this planning is notstopped now, residents in the community are asking where will it end?

My main concern is that this Application has been preceded by a couple of extant "try-ons" to seejust how far the planning boundaries can be pushed towards justifying the current Application. Onthe face of it, the current Application for a 16 bed space redevelopment could be interpreted as aprecursor to a pair of HMOs, or even an Airbnb enterprise.

The Applicant's D&A statement states:"The proposal is for two large dwellings that take full advantage of the exceptional size and depthof the plot. The dwellings are designed to provide accommodation for two Bristol based brothersand their extended families to provide generous spaces ranging from a variety of large Bed/SittingRooms, Cinemas and TV Rooms, and semi-subterranean leisure facilities including home offices,Card & snooker rooms and indoor swimming pools".

However, the personal bona fides of the potential occupiers are totally irrelevant in planning termsand should not influence the Planning Officer when considering this Application.

Another assertion is that "The site presents a rare opportunity to create a pair of substantialhouses reminiscent of the Bristol Merchant Tradition". Again this is totally irrelevant to the leafybackwater of Westbury-on-Trym, where the neighbouring houses are not in the "Bristol MerchantTradition" and, by inference, the proposed buildings would be better sited in Clifton!

The proposed 16 bedroom development could, potentially, accommodate 32 people that wouldgenerate a significant number of vehicle movements into and out of the site, adjacent to a tight

bend on Canford Lane.

In short, this latest proposal for redeveloping the site at 334 Canford Lane is both ugly and a grossover-development of the site that is totally out of keeping with the existing street scene. With threestories, the proposed pair of buildings have absolutely nothing in common with the nearneighbours and, architecturally, would represent a blot on the landscape and therefore theApplication should be rejected.

Proposal of this site shows a complete lack of respect to the surroundingneighbourhood. The sheer size of 2 three storey , 8 bedroom houses is totally out of keeping withsurrounding semi detached and detached family homes. Furthermore, the inclusion of roofterraces can only result in extra noise, which will be quite unacceptable, considering the number ofpeople who may have access to it.I live almost opposite the proposed site, and due to trees being lopped, I do not like the idea ofbeing overlooked due to the height of these houses.My main objection is the inevitable sheer volume of extra traffic accessing/exiting this site. CanfordLane is a very busy road with a number of very large lorries going to and from the AvonmouthIndustrial Estate , there is a 30mph speed limit in operation, which is constantly exceeded. Theproposed exit/access for the site is very close to a very sharp blind bend where many accidentshave occurred over the years and this will only exasperate the situation.

I agree with all other comments regarding design and size.The design is completely out of keeping with the existing style of houses on Canford Lane.The size is hugely obtrusive and again out of character.

I have 2 further major concerns

The additional volume of traffic entering and exiting from what is a very busy road, will bedangerous.The proximity of the bend at the end of Canford Lane to the junction at Coombe lane, means thattraffic will be un-sighted coming around that bend travelling towards Westbury-on-Trym. Againdangerous.

The traffic load is ok with two houses (334 and 336) as per the current layout, however it will becompounded greatly if this application is granted.

When planning was originally granted for 336 Canford Lane, the council had real concerns abouthaving an additional dwelling and additional traffic using the drive of 334. I find it ridiculous that thecouncil is now considering an increase of at least 600% and 1200% from the original 336 decisionon a road where the usage has increased greatly over the last 25 years, with no increase incapacity.

Planning objection

The proposal for this land shows a complete lack of respect to the size and scale of theneighbours at the front, sides and rear of the proposed building. The sheer size of both theseproperties will also have a negative effect to further neighbouring houses as the proposed houseswould be sideways on.Privacy to neighbouring houses (both windows and gardens) would be completely lost not justfrom the size of the 2 houses but also the roof terrace.

With the amount of adults that will be accommodated in these houses, the roof terrace especiallywill have a large impact on noise and light pollution in the area. This is not the area to build a partyhouse.

The access to the property is a busy main road in very close proximity to a sharp blind bend whereI have witnessed accidents all too often, the increased traffic of potentially 16 vehicles is highlydangerous and with not enough allocated parking, cars will be forced to park on the road. Leavingour own drives with cars parked on the road has proved very dangerous as cars already park herewhen the car park to Blaise Estate is full which is most weekends. There are several youngchildren in the directly neighbouring properties (including our 1 year old) and with so many carsaccessing this site, crossing the road will be increasingly dangerous.

Each property will dwarf its neighbour and completely loses the family feel of houses in this area.We live directly opposite the property and to have two houses covering such a large plot of land

would ruin our view of the surrounding trees. The proposal to remove trees and having alreadyidentified the high chance of damaging Cat A and B trees from ground works which have at least160 years of life in them is not acceptable.

This application is not in keeping with the residential area made up of semi anddetached houses. The amount of vehicles that this type of building will hold for the residents wouldbe sizeable and be very dangerous feeding on to Canford Lane around the same time in rushhour.I feel the planners need to show a sympathetic veiw to a old and established village and not permitsuch a large out of keeping structure to dominate the road. I do understand there is pressure onthe local government to build more homes but a they have a responsibility to be fair and respectfulto existing tax paying villagers and not allow a quick fix block of flats in clearly the wrong location.

This is the latest in a series of planning applications by the owners and the first time Ihave made any objection.This particular proposal is totally unsuitable for the area, out of keeping with the rest of the housesin the area and will do nothing to enhance or improve the property, merely make a lot of money inprofit for the developers and owners.My strongest objection, apart from how out of keeping the finished site will appear against the restof the neighborhood, is the inevitable increase in traffic to and from the addresses. Canford Laneis a very busy and dangerous road. It has a 30mph speed limit which is routinely exceeded andprovides a regular income stream for the speed camera van which is often parked near thisaddress. There have been numerous accidents and some fatalities over the years and thisproposal will merely increase the hazardous situation.

This is a completely inappropriate development for the site.

The size and height of the buildings is totally out of character with the existing neighbourhood offamily houses. Building almost to the boundaries of the existing plot will reduce green space andplace the houses too close to the street, from where they will dominate all surrounding houses.The style of the buildings is out of keeping with the surrounding properties and the development ismore suited to city centre living rather than this quiet suburban area. The roof terraces areunnecessary and would infringe on neighbours' privacy.

The number of potential occupants is excessive and would lead to noise disturbance when out onthe terraces from which there would be direct views into neighbouring gardens and houses,including those across the road due to the excessive height of the proposed buildings. This woulddestroy the peace and privacy of existing residents.

The entrance to the property is close to a dangerous blind bend on a fast-moving road and the riskof accidents will increase with more vehicles pulling into and out of the site. I am also concernedthat the number of people living and visiting the two houses would lead to on-street parking onCanford Lane. This would make pulling out of our driveway opposite extremely dangerous as itwould block the view up and down the road. On-street parking would also mean that fast-movingtraffic would need to pull on to the other side of the road close to a blind bend with a further risk ofincreased number of accidents.

Julie and David Moore.

We agree with the comments made in the previous objections.In particular we have concerns about the first floor terrace which with an HMO dwelling which webelieve this will be, will have the propensity for noise pollution and overlooking neighbours. Thenoise would travel more effectively from the position of an open first floor terrace. I know that myelderly neighbour is also concerned.The architecture and probable use is out of keeping with the residential nature of thisneighbourhood.If a possible total of 32 adults live in the 2 properties, there will not be enough parking on site,leading to dangerous parking on Canford Lane. That number of cars coming in and out onto thatpart of Canford lane, near a junction, would also increase risk.

We have a number of major concerns regarding this proposal:- the size of the properties at 3 levels above ground is not in keeping with the neighbourhood andwould dominate all of the surrounding residences. This development is more in keeping with anurban flat development rather than the existing suburban family residences.- the 1st floor terraces are completely unacceptable and would overlook all neighbouring gardensup to several houses away. They are completely unnecessary given that there is sufficient outdoorgarden space at ground level in common with every other residence in the area. They wouldreplace the existing view of trees and greenery enjoyed by all with the prospect of large groups ofpeople at an elevated level with the associated sight and sound pollution.- the buildings & garages are positioned too near the front of Canford Lane and not 'along the line'of neighbouring properties. This contravenes our understanding of the planning standards forthese Canford Lane properties.

I have come across this application today and I must say I think the design and asceticof the proposed buildings are excellent.

I note comments from neighbours however in my own experience if you had a choice of adevelopment taking place or not taking place, if it were to disturb your piece for a period of time,anyone would naturally say NOT.

I think it is great to see redevelopment of areas such as Westbury on Trym.

The architect has done a great job of making the scale of the property the correct size for the plotin which the development will sit in.

I would like to fully support this application and would be delighted to see the finished property

Despite the plot of land at 334 Canford Lane being large the proposed construction oftwo huge houses would dominate the local environment dwarfing the neighbouring homes andtheir gardens. These two proposed buildings with their adjoining garages are massive in allproportions and have excessive footprint. They would be taller than all existing local propertiesand stretch deep into the open green garden space behind as well as encroaching towards theroad beyond the existing property which is set back and unobtrusive. Whilst many of the localhouses are of similar era and structure they are all different and compliment each other in size andstyle. To have two huge modern identical mirror image houses at this location would be out ofkeeping with the local ambience unbalancing the proportion of buildings to open green spaces.Whilst the sociable noise of activities of daily living from the surrounding single occupancy familyhomes is normal for suburban living, the difference of that from 3 adults and a couple of dogs inthe existing property to the proposed extended family dwellings accommodating perhaps 32persons would be antisocial and unacceptable. The elevated roof garden terraces would not onlylook out over our garden but others too and be a constant intrusion into our privacy but also likelyto generate unintended amplified noise from 32 potential occupants at an elevated position acrossthe back of Canford Lane and directly into the rear of the houses in Beverley Gardens. The wholebuilding would restrict light into our garden and the side elevation would block light into our firstfloor west facing bedrooms and a possible first floor side roof terrace at bedroom window levelwhich would be unacceptable. In addition, to have a potential increase in traffic from the two smallcars currently at the existing property to as many as 13 vehicles needs careful consideration neara dangerous bend in the road frequently approached at excessive speed by some drivers on athoroughfare whose calming and safe crossing measures are yet to be addressed by the council.Mark & Helen Crowther

Planning Objection to proposed development at 334 Canford Lane. Ref No 20/02002/F

We are extremely concerned that we have not been formally notified by the Planning Authority ofthis major redevelopment proposal.

We wish to object to the above proposed development on the following grounds:

Loss of Privacy and overlooking: the rear of our house will be directly and severely overlooked bytwo very large first floor roof terraces (c 50 sq m EACH) and floor to ceiling windows which wouldlook directly into our bedroom windows, AND 2 further sets of windows and balconies at secondfloor level. The buildings would also be situated much closer to our property than the existing one,and given the proposed occupancy rate, varied uses and outdoor platforms, the noise levels arelikely to be significant and overwhelming.

Intensification of Use and Scale/Appearance of buildings: the proposed massive 3 storey, 8Bedroom buildings are entirely out of scale with the existing development in the vicinity whichcomprises mainly traditional 2 storey 1930s/1950s houses.In effect what is proposed are two extremely large Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in anarea of single family housing. The area is entirely unsuited to HMO use.The overall appearance of these tall, dominant buildings is of blocks of flats orwarehouse/industrial buildings. The use of the buildings includes non-residential facilities(swimming pools, games rooms etc) which would intensify and amplify noise and disturbance fromthe development. They would surely be more suited to city centre entertainment areas or sports

centre complexes than a quiet suburban residential location.In addition the rear elevations consist of very large flat, hard surface finishes such as glass andconcrete which will act as huge sound reflectors, further amplifying and throwing into our gardenthe additional noise generated by the use of the buildings. (Typical rear elevations in neighbouringproperties have a number of different surface finishes and angles, all of which serve to diffusenoise levels. ) There are no conceivable legal boundary divisions which could be erected tocounter this potential nuisance and protect our privacy.

Highway Access: The additional proposed access is onto a busy main road where speeding is afrequent occurrence. It is also adjacent to a blind corner with two other road junctions.Increased parking facilities suggests a very large number of vehicles is envisaged, up to 14 in total? We are concerned about this additional vehicle access onto a major route which is usedthroughout the day by emergency vehicles (main route to Southmead Hospital).

Yours faithfully

Hugh Caldicott and Valerie Ford7 Beverley Gardens, Bristol BS9 3PR

The following comments are based on living at 11 Beverley Gardens for over 40 years.

Loss of PrivacyAt this time of year (late May), anybody viewing the Beverley Gardens properties from 334 couldeasily form the opinion that the properties are screened from each other by the leaf coverage ontrees at the end of 334s rear garden. However, when the coverage is removed, there is clear lineof sight between the first floors of 334 and the Beverley Garden properties. This is not a problemtoday as property floor levels are similar and they are approximately 180 ft apart.With the proposed properties having first-floor roof-top terraces and an additional floor this will nolonger be the case. The roof terraces extend far closer to Beverley Gardens properties and theadditional floor provides a far higher viewing angle. This will give the proposed properties near-uninterrupted sight into the gardens, kitchens and most importantly, the bedrooms of the BeverleyGardens properties. In previous a planning application (09/01816/F) for 108A Coombe Lane,where Bedroom 2 overlooked my rear garden, the planning authority dictated that windows shouldbe opaque and non-opening to avoid privacy issues.As anecdotal evidence, whilst preparing my comments, as I look out of a bedroom window, I canclear see two dogs being exercised in the garden of 334 over the top of a 2m fence at the end of10 Beverley Gardens rear garden.

Noise PollutionTwo examples that demonstrate how sounds travels from 334. Firstly, when occasional partieshave been held in 334, the noise has easily carried into the rear of my property even throughclosed double-glazed windows. This has been perfectly acceptable as the parties were very

infrequent (couple of times a year) and did not extend past midnight. Secondly, when the tenniscourt was in use the noise associated with matches was clearly audible, but at a perfectlyacceptable level for day light hours. Based on these experiences, the amenities in the proposedproperties, the higher number of occupants (upped from 5 bedrooms to 16), potential entertainingactivities, and the stated objective from the DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT "being to create asense of 'living outside with the outside becoming a simple extension of the internal spaces" I amgravely concerned that the usually peaceful nature of the neighbourhood would be impacted on avery frequent basis. Noise pollution coming from the pool area, garden and especially the roof-topterraces, located at bedroom level with little to block noise potentially disturbing sleep. Closing ofwindows to reduce noise is not acceptable.

Property SizeThe property size, height and design, and amenities are totally out of character with theneighbourhood. They will be the only properties to have three floors located above ground level.When combined, width-wise, they fully utilise the width of the plot and extend almost up to theboundaries of adjacent properties. Length wise, they are far closer to the rearward BeverleyGardens properties. All these factors leading to a feeling of overbearing and encroachment.

We at 9 Beverley Gardens object to the proposals for 334 Canford Lane for thefollowing reasons:

Overlooking/loss of privacyRoof terraces at 1st floor level, overlooking our property and those of our neighbours alongBeverley Gardens. The current house only has windows at 1st floor level. The proposed elevationof the 2nd floor, with large cathedral style windows all facing in a 90 degree angle to the currentproperty, would mean that properties behind and in front would be MUCH more looked upon.

Are we now going to have to buy extra fencing to keep our property private, given the large rise inpeople living on the property? We currently only have some bushes, tree trunks and a modestchicken wire fence between us, and are currently enjoying a quiet, safe, amicable familyatmosphere between the residents. This is a nice natural way to cushion noise between theproperties too - more on that later. I don't believe I can actually put any fencing in there anyway,because of the Tree Protection Orders on the lovely large trees in the area, such as the Sycamorewhose canopy and Root Protection Zone straddle our property and that of my immediateneighbour.

Any fencing that would be put up between the properties would only be allowable up to 2 metrestall, therefore the bushes, that currently provide taller protection than that, would likely have to beremoved in order to put that fencing in. If 1st floor roof terraces can overlook that fencing, wewould feel very exposed. This is unacceptable.

Visual amenityNot in keeping with the current local architectural style and family home feel of the area. They looklike shopping malls or blocks of flats and do not look like local neighbouring private homes. Thewhole width of the plot of land would also be occupied with these buildings, meaning loss of theprivate detached feel of the current plot and would feel much more like a terraced set ofapartments.

Highway safetyThe addition of another entranceway to the driveway, which is much closer than the currententrance to a fast paced corner is concerning. The current parking spaces go up to 13 spaces,which creates more traffic in and out of that property and also the neighbouring property, meaningit would be used a great deal more than it is now.

Noise and disturbance resulting from useThese two houses are being built like party palaces - 2 cinemas, 2 swimming pools, 2 card playingrooms, 2 snooker rooms, 2 bars, 2 cellars...? What type of property is this proposing to be? Howwill the noise pollution be managed when a 5 bedroom house is replaced by 16 bedrooms,meaning up to 32 people living on the property and exploring the garden? We are a quietneighbourhood - in fact my one small chatterbox of a child is probably the most noise theneighbours ever have to deal with!

We live behind these properties and three stories will be higher than all the house in thearea plus a roof terrace will completely spoil our privacy over looking our garden and conservatory. This is unacceptable.