I have read carefully the letter dated 21st August 2020 sent by Rebecca West, residingat No 1 Whytes Cloes, to Conrod Rodizaj, Plannong Officer at Bristo Council and I wish to concurfully with the objections stated therin.

each of the semi-detached dwellings. The pitched roof on the 2.9m deep rear

extension already granted under Permitted Development for the existing building

will be bad enough – if, and when, it is ever completed.

On a point of detail with respect to the parking arrangements to the front of the

proposed property, this will result in the loss of at least one on-street parking space in a small cul-de-sac where on-street parking is already at a premium. Additionally,

the submitted drawings show no detail for the capture of any potential water run-off

into the street from the proposed parking area and, therefore, the plans do not conform to the Council’s requirements for sustainable drainage.

Finally, on a point of planning formality, the Applicant appears to draw heavily on having already been “given the nod” from a BCC Planning Officer that this latest Application will be granted. Is this ethical, without going through the due process of

a formal Planning Application? Surely, the current Application should “sink or swim” based solely on the merits of this Application, not the unofficial nod from the

Planning Officer that refused the previous Application?

This Application should be refused.

Yours faithfully

A F Aburrow

Principal Reasons for Objection

1. Harm to the character and distinctiveness of the locality

The applicants claim in their Planning Statement that the Appeal Inspector did not give due regard to the stone boundary wall separating the site from Passage Rd when he dismissed the Appeal against refusal of application 19/01762/F.

However the Inspector was concerned about the urbanising effect on the garden as a buffer, stating: “The large open side garden of the appeal site also provides an important buffer of space between the built form of Whytes Close and the CA. The proposal would move this built form muchcloser to the CA and would remove a significant portion of green space. Whilst the appellant has indicated that significant additional tree planting will take place as part of the proposal, these will take many years to reach maturity. Furthermore, this would not overcome a fundamental concern over the further urbanising effect and removal of an important gap between the built form and theCA. Accordingly I find that the proposal would harm the setting of the CA.”

The applicants also refer to the setting of Elmlea Gate Lodge and the Conservation Area and state that the the only view the Lodge would have of the proposed dwelling would be from the front elevation. However the setting of the Lodge and Conservation Area are not determined by the view from the windows of the Lodge, but the view towards both of them. This is particularly evident when the site is viewed southwards towards 1 Whytes Close from the raised pathway on the northwest side of Passage Road where the vista is of the gable end of no.1 framed on one side by the garden and the old stone wall and on the other by the tower of the historic parish church of Westbury in the Conservation Area and the boundary wall doesn’t affect the view, as we outlined in our objection to 19/01762/F.

2. Loss of Green infrastructure

Policy BCS9 of the Bristol Core Strategy outlines that the integrity and connectivity of the strategicgreen infrastructure network will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Opportunities to extendthe coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green infrastructure network should be taken. Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development. The intention of Policy DM21 is similarly forceful: a clear presumption in favour of the protection of private residential gardens. Given the increasing realisation that urban green spaces in the form of residential gardens offer vital ecosystem services in mitigating climate change, encouraging biodiversity and enhancing health and wellbeing of residents, this presumption must be seen to play a more dominant role in decision making.

The applicants admit in the Tree Report that a number of trees were removed prior to the previousapplication being submitted and the Planning Statement proposes planting 10 trees in the garden as mitigation according to the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. The Statement refers to planting “10 additional trees, a variety of evergreen/flowering shrubs and grass. While we are pleased to see that the standard has been acknowledged, there is no way that 10 mature trees can be accommodated in the proposed remaining garden space without compromising residential amenity. This has obviously been recognised by the applicants and hence some of the 10 proposed trees as listed are actually shrubs. This needs to be rectified. Additionally as remarked by the Appeal Inspector as quoted above, while “significant additional tree planting will take place as part of the proposal, these will take many years to reach maturity.”The Avon and Bristol Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is a registered charityRegistered charity number 1189628The CPRE Avon and Bristol logo is a registered trademark

We contend that in order to comply with Local Plan policies on gardens and green infrastructure the existing garden should be retained, with the planting of as many reasonably mature trees as can be accommodated. However if the application were to be granted permission then a prior condition must be that a sufficient contribution is made for nearby off site planting of trees in mitigation.

We are also concerned that the current level of neglect and degradation of what was previously a well tended mature garden does not augur well for the implementation and future maintenance ofa Landscape Plan. We would therefore also wish that completion of the landscaping prior to residents occupying the property and the continued maintenance of the garden be conditioned.

We would also advise that were officers minded to grant permission that given the narrow nature of the road in Whytes Close, the fact that it is a short cul de sac and the proximity of the entrance to the property to Passage Road, which is a busy through route, that a Construction Management Plan should be produced prior to any permission being granted.

In conclusion we therefore ask for this application to be refused. It represents a prime example of the way in which valuable garden land is being eroded throughout Bristol, where corner plots are being treated as if they were brownfield sites, purely because policy on the protection of gardens is being interpreted such that a location is seen as “sustainable”, and thus suitable for development, due to the proximity of a few shops and a bus stop and as such often overrides the basic tenants of the policy. Thus reasonably sized gardens suitable for families with children are being replaced by much smaller plots where it is impossible to grow large trees which would provide much needed mitigation for climate change and pollution and habitats for wildlife, not to mention shaded areas for residents to relax in. If we cannot learn lessons about the value to residents of urban areas of existing gardens which are large enough to support mature trees, hedges and habitats, we will be doing a great disservice to future generations.

Yours sincerely,JR KempshallCPRE Avon and Bristol,South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District Committee

The Avon and Bristol Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is a registered charityRegistered charity number 1189628The CPRE Avon and Bristol logo is a registered trademark

Dear Conrad Rodzaj

I am long term resident at Elmfield Gate Lodge and I object strongly to the application ref20/02624/F

If you refer to the Appeal decision in relation to the previous planning application reference19/01762/F, you will see that the main reason for the appeal dismissal was because of thedetrimental and harmful effect the proposal ref: 19/01762/F would have upon the character andappearance of the area, including the setting of the Westbury On Trym conservation area and theunlisted Building of Merit, Elmfield Gate Lodge.

The Inspector S Shapland who decided the appeal, clearly states in paragraphs 11-15 of his 9December 2019 decision that the site for application 20/02624/F is in close proximity to ElmfieldGate Lodge which is identified as an unlisted building of merit. In paragraph 13 he writes 'Thelodge is the surviving remnant of the entrance to Elmfield House and is an important locallandmark and it marks the entrance of the CA when approached form Passage Road. Thesignificance of this non-designated heritage asset is borne form its distinctive architecturalelements and that it defines the edge of the Conservation area'.

In paragraph 15 he concludes that 'the proposal would harm the character and appearance of thearea including the setting of the Conservation Area and the unlisted building of merit, ElmfieldGate Lodge. It therefore conflicts with Core Strategy 2011 (CS) policies BCS21, and with the SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies 2014, (DMP) (2014) DM21, DM26, DM27 andDM29.

I submit that the proposed building in application 19/01762/F would harm the character andappearance of the area including the setting of the Conservation Area and the unlisted building ofmerit, Elmfield Gate Lodge, and conflicts with Core Strategy 2011 (CS) policies BCS21, and withthe Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014, (DMP) (2014) DM21, DM26,DM27 and DM29, in substantially the same manner and to substantially the same degree thatapplication 19/01762/F did. I therefore respectfully object to application 19/01762/F.

Sarah Cording

I strongly object to the above planning application which is, including appeals andrevisions the 6th proposal that this developer has produced for this site. You have alreadyreceived detailed well-reasoned objections from Rebecca Yirrell, Audrey Callaghan, Jill Jones andKathryn Ip. I fully agree with the points set out in their arguments and so do not proposed to simplyreiterate them. I will make the following comments.

1. CHARACTER OF THE AREAIn DM21 it states "in all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to thecharacter and appearance of an area" and "the proposal would represent a more efficient use ofland at a location where higher densities are appropriate, or the development would result in asignificant improvement to the urban design of an area." I believe that this proposal, as was thecase of all the previous ones fails to meet either of these conditions.

This part of Westbury is defined not simply by its buildings but more importantly by its largegardens. It is the green spaces surrounding the houses that give this area its character. It is also anot a high density area. The developer has indicated before that in this area some gardens havebeen destroyed to make way for high density housing. I maintain that rather than this fact being ajustification for continuing to destroy the character of this area it is a reason to preserve whatcurrently remains.

2. PROXIMITY TO THE STONE WALLThe stone wall is an important landmark and has to be over 100 years old. There are two issuesassociated with the wall. The first it the protection of the wall. The proposed building is only 5.9meters from the wall and given the cavalier approach of the developer, this wall could be put at

risk. If permission were granted then I suggest that the developer is asked to place a sum inescrow to cover any possible damage done. In addition, I support the proposal that if permissionwere granted that a covenant is put in place preventing any further building on the side of thehouse.

The second issue relates to the sight lines. The athletics of this beautiful wall is not simply derivedfrom the wall itself but from the fact that the current building is set back from the road. Bringing theline of the proposed new building with 5.9 meters of the wall must have a significant visual impacton the area, part of which is a conservation area.

I therefor register my objection to application ref 20/02624/F relating to1 Whytes Close, Westburyon Trym, BS9 3HU.

I am a regular visitor to Whytes Close to see my parents. In addition to the objectionsalready posted regarding this application, of which I am fully supportive, I just wanted to highlightmy position (and that of many others) who visit friends or relatives in the Close by car.

There is very limited on street parking for visitors to the existing 12 properties. In reality there isonly one space on the road to leave an unattended car without obstructing either the road itself,other driveways or the pavement. I often do end up parking with two wheels on the pavement butam now reluctant to do so having received a parking ticket in Whytes Close in the past.

The building of an additional property will not only exacerbate the problem in the long term, but Ienvisage that during the period of its construction there will inevitably be numerous trades peopleand their vehicles obstructing the road. Whilst this may only be temporary (9-12 months?) in thispost COVID era where supermarket deliveries and internet shopping are becoming the norm, it isimperative that any residential area has sufficient space for occasional visitors to park and turntheir vehicles without causing unnecessary inconvenience to the rest of the neighborhood.

We object to this development in Whytes Close which is yet another iteration of recentsimilar applications the last of which was declined on appeal as recently as 9th December 2019.The appeal was declined citing: 'The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the characterand appearance of the area, including the setting of the Westbury-on-Trym Conservation Area andthe Unlisted Building of Merit, Elmfield Gate Lodge.'This new proposal for a large attached house added to 1 Whytes Close will not help with this mainissue and in some ways will make things worse in its attempt to make a pair of semis out of a1960's detached house.Point 8 of the refused appeal mentions the perceived footprint and look of this proposal. Itsposition at the top of the close makes it appear much larger and more obvious than otherdwellings in the close. Further, given the modern materials used, a match to the existing propertyat number 1 is not achievable. This new proposal will look most out of place attached to theexisting building and with a different roof design, frontage and materials. This poor aspect will alsobe clearly visible from Passage Road and from houses in close proximity, in particular ElmfieldGate Lodge and the houses in Whytes Close.Point 7 of the refused appeal mentions the uniform feel of Whytes Close. This proposal attemptsto make a pair of semi-detached houses from the 1960's detached house at 1 Whytes Close. It willproduce an inconsistent look and feel to the close; a non-uniform look; it will look out of place.Building in close proximity to the Westbury Conservation Area is an objection raised by the councilin other planning applications. The garden at 1 Whytes Close acts as a buffer zone between theconservation area and the houses in Whytes Close. This substantial dwelling will destroy thatbuffer zone.This property will compromise the street scene particularly on Passage Road as one drives intothe Westbury Conservation Area. It will compromise the village feel of Westbury-on-Trym.

The proposed tree planting close to the rubble wall could eventually compromise its stability. Thisis an attempt to 'make good' the removal of trees and shrubs that were in the garden at 1 WhytesClose before the current owner removed them and to satisfy various council green guidelines andlegislation. Have we any guarantees that trees will be planted to compensate for the removal ofexisting trees and that the plantings will be safe in the long term?

I object to the proposed development of the plot for a number of reasons. All of myobjections are valid from the first application and despite the various changes all are still valid:

1. Any additional dwellings in the road would create additional vehicles in the road, whether thatbe during the construction or post construction with visitors to the road which the close cannotaccommodate. It's a small cul de sac with only 1 off road parking space.

2. As a Mum of two children attending the school 150 meters away, I have serious concerns aboutsafety. Walking my children to school is already extremely hazardous since the removal of theschool crossing and the nearest crossing being 300 meters away in the wrong direction. the cornerof whytes close and passage road has Many children crossing it on a daily basis and many carspassing each other on a very narrow stretch. Any widening of the existing driveway at no.1 wouldmean even less pavement and an increased danger to parents and children's safety.

3. Given all houses were built in the close during the same era, with similar brickwork any newdwelling would negatively impact the aesthetics and heritage of the road.

I therefore strongly object.

I would refer you to comments already submitted in relation to this application. I stronglyagree with them and do not propose to duplicate them here.

Whytes Close was built as a unique development with its own style and symmetry and anotherdwelling would crowd and destroy this.

The access to the drive of the proposed development is far too close to the bend/junction withPassage Road. As a single lane road any vehicle coming round the bend into the Close wouldhave nowhere to manoeuvre away from a vehicle reversing from the drive of the proposeddevelopment.

The Close can often be congested with vehicles belonging to visitors or tradespeople who park onthe pavements as it is a single lane road. Another dwelling involving similar activity would not beacceptable.

I respectfully request that you do NOT grant permission for this application.

So as part of Westbury’s architectural history, we are anxious that the layout of Whytes Close is preserved in the way it was planned originally, with adequate spacing between the Close and the main Road and with respect paid to its surroundings that are within the conservation area itself.

The houses were built in what had been the garden of Whytes House – (before its post-war demolition and called after the owners of many years who were a prominent Westbury family and whose name continues in the Close title.)

Their late Georgian style, 19th century house fronted Passage Road, with a large apron shaped garden behind it that followed the contours of the hill down towards the village.

The existing houses therefore were carefully spaced within the original 1950’s design, to fill that apron shaped plot-widening towards the bottom end and tighter at the top-the entry point to the close- where the original house had stood. It was a discreet and carefully thought plan so that none of the houses were too prominent or intrusive, but would fit neatly into that circle, while still preserving the view to the top of the hill and the line of the old curving stone and rubble wall along Passage Road.

Indeed, the wall has been cleverly used like a curtain wall around the outer bailey of a castle-protecting the cottages within its boundary while in modern terms giving privacy as well as space.

It is a good design, even if the houses themselves are simple and unpretentious in their exteriors, built at a time when post war, we were only inching towards bolder and more innovative styles.

(The interiors however did embrace new ideas with open plan living, centrally placed fireplaces serving back and front and varied forms of stone work as part of the décor. I speak as a long time visitor to two of the houses).

Within this context therefore, any re-building that alters the layout of the close and rejects the idea of a ‘green buffer’ area behind the wall on either side, that not only protects the first houses in the circle (Nos 1 and 12) from noise and pollution from a busy main road, but also gives the whole its symmetry and a visual spacing between the wall and the buildings, gracious to the landscape, is to be deplored and discounted-as has been done already by the planning inspectorate.

It is also notable that previous attempts to build out towards the wall at No 12 were rejected during the last 20 years. The Westbury Society was involved in getting the first plan rejected as were residents of the Close, for the same reasons as stated above and were supported by the planning department as it was considered to be a ‘harmful intrusion into the visual buffer’

…………………………………….

The problem with the present application to add another house to the side of the existing small detached dwelling, is that this cannot be done without eroding this very important buffer space. At the front it may manage to preserve the 10metre width but at the rear, because of the steep curve of the road and the wall, it will be reduced to less than the width of a living room.

This also raises the question of the destruction of the garden space itself -please see separate comments.

So I would ask you to give this matter very careful scrutiny when viewing this application and to keep in mind the impact of this development on the landscape in this part of Westbury, which is precious to its history. I would recommend that time permitting, you pay a short visit to the site to understand properly what I mean.

………………………………………….

My further comments concern:-

1) The style of the houses that are proposed and 2) The use of the garden.

1) It cannot be argued that the architectural style of the single detached house at No 1 is distinguished or original - it is just functional but unobtrusive. The garden built around it by the previous owners did much to mitigate its plainness and presented a pleasant landscape on that corner. Unfortunately the present owner/ developer set about destroying the lovely garden as soon as he could, cutting down its trees and strewing rubbish everywhere, in order presumably, to convince planners that it was a rubbish tip waiting to be re developed.(This is an all too common trait among developers that we have observed in three other instances in Westbury and is much to be regretted.) If this mundane style is mirrored in another added to its side, then one mistake is going to be doubled into a greater one. There was no attempt in the first instance to pay any respect to the Victorian Lodge on the other side of the road (originally by the gateway and lead in to Elmfield House – owned by the Wills family, but now a school for deaf children)- by reflecting the materials used, but there is sufficient distance between the two at present, allowed for in the green space behind the wall, for the eye to travel from one to the other separately. A semi-detached pair squeezed in behind the wall-brick built and with a double hipped roof line will jar completely in the context of this traditional and semi-rural landscape. It will also interfere with the plain and simple curve of the wall as it rounds the bend and gives a very pleasing and historical entry to the village from the main road.

……………………………………………………… I would draw your attention to BCS21 that states New Development should: ‘safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high quality environment for future occupiers’ with reference to the quality of the building proposed and the reduction of garden space which will result from the development if allowed to go ahead- and ask if either can thus be justified? And will the design, as laid down in BCS21 4.21.8 “contribute positively to local character by responding to the underlying landscape structure, distinctive patterns and forms of development and local culture”. I think no in this context!

…………………………………………………………

2) In the City’s recently published policies (Accepted 2009-12) and with many contributions from local groups such as ours in the initial consultations with the public when the documents were being formed, a strong defence of gardens was made, against the tidal wave of destruction that was already taking place in some suburbs.

Policy DM 21 thus states that “In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character and appearance of an area” and in 2.21.2 ” development involving loss of gardens will not be permitted unless: the development would result in a significant improvement to the urban design of an area”.

In either case these principles will not be honoured if this development goes ahead.

So why have principles if they can be easily cast aside when inconvenient to a developer anxious to make a fast profit without regard to what is being spoiled for good?

Finally - in asking for this application to be rejected, for all the above reasons, we hope that the garden can be re-instated and the property as it exists now, sold for a reasonable profit by the present owner and that it will not be granted simply because the City planners wish to avoid the expense of another appeal, but is judged properly on its merits -or lack of them- and in its precise context. Hilary Long pp:- The Westbury on Trym Society.

We own and live at 7 Whytes Close, Westbury-on-Trym.

We object to the proposed development regarding the property at 1 Whytes Close and request theplans be rejected in their current form, primarily for the two reasons, outlined below.

Firstly, we consider that the proposed plans would be an over-development of the plot. Theadditional house would be closer to the Passage Road boundary wall than that of the houseopposite, including its extension, 12 Whytes Close, thus being incompatible with the opencharacter of the two corner sites. Also, it would therefore be nearer to Elmfield Gate Lodge, whichis identified as an Unlisted Building of Merit and the Westbury-on-Trym Conservation Area. WithinWhytes Close itself, this development does not have a garden that would be in-keeping with thescale of the other gardens, particularly the front gardens that are adjacent and opposite to it, liningthe sides of the Close: Consequently, it would not result in a coherent street scene. Furthermore,the proposal shows a driveway, which will remove a legal space for on-road parking in WhytesClose, alongside adding a new household to the Close, so causing an additional demand on thealready limited parking opportunities for any visitors to the Close and the nearby area. Finally, wenote that as the attached dwelling is in-line with the current property at 1 Whytes Close, it willvisually alter the street scene in a manner that is different to that at 12 Whytes Close, which has aset-back extension. Thus resulting in a lack of consistency with the frontage visible along theClose and representing an over-development of the site.

Secondly, we consider that the proposed plans for this site do not overcome the issues related tobuilding close to the old stone boundary wall, as raised in previous plans that the Council refusedpermission to build. The plans indicate that the new dwelling would be near to the wall and

building this close would seem to present a structural risk to the wall, which is a visually definingfeature of Passage Road. Also, the roof of the new property is highly likely to be visible from anumber of nearby dwellings and streets and would alter the view on approach to the village. Whilstthere are plans to plant new trees to restore the garden, in some measure, to that of the previousmature and established plant-scheme, we are concerned that if the dwelling is built, not enoughspace will in fact be left for such trees to grow without affecting the structural integrity of the stonewall. We very much welcome the planting scheme in principle and hope that some mechanism forensuring its viability will be put in place, whatever the outcome of this planning application.

In the light of all the above, we request that the current planning proposal be rejected.

Kathryn and Robert Vaughan

Jill Jones1 Aust LaneWestbury-on-TrymBristolBS9 3HB

21 August 2020

Conrad Rodzaj EsqPlanning OfficerBristol City CouncilDevelopment ManagementCity HallPO Box 3176BristolBS3 9FS

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

Objection to Planning Application, 1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU, ref 20/02624/F, validated24/07/2020 (the "Application").

1. Introduction

1.1 I live at 1 Aust Lane, which is opposite the site of the proposed new development.

1.2 I object strongly to the Application. My reasons are set out in detail below but the main pointsare that (i) this proposal would be an over development of this site offending the principle set downin prior planning decisions and appeals for both this site and No12 that 10m of open space at theends of Whytes Close) must be preserved in order to avoid harm to the character and appearanceof the area, and (ii) the Application clearly conflicts with the reasons for the refusal of Application19/01762/F to build a detached dwelling on this site, for example see page 3/15 of Mr Wilkinson's24/05/2019 Delegated Report and Decision where he talks of "enlarg[ing] a previous architecturalmistake" and "detract[ing] from the original spacious design".

2. The street setting, open space, visual buffer 2.1 Whytes Close is a small cul de sac with 12houses, two detached and 10 semi-detached. All were built as a single development in and around1959 on land that was previously part of the Henbury Hill Estate. Directly across Passage Roadfrom No 1 Whytes Close there is a Conservation Area.

2.2 A particular feature of the street scene is spaciousness: all the houses have quite largegardens and the spacing between adjacent buildings is quite generous, and in particular there isconsiderable spacing between the two houses adjacent to Passage Road (numbers 1 and 12) andthe ancient high stone wall that forms the western edge of this part of Passage Road. This wall issignificant in its own right, architecturally and in its contribution to the character of the local area.The two end houses are currently a considerable distance from this wall leaving an importantvisual buffer that this Application now seeks to reduce. The Application breaches the principles setout in both the Council's refusal of Application 19/01762/F to build a detached dwelling on this site,and the Appeal Inspector's dismissal of this applicant's appeal against that refusal. You will befamiliar with these prior decisions but for easy reference I would point out that the whole of the"Reasons" section in the Council's 03/06/2020 refusal of 19/01762/F deals with this aspect, as doparagraphs 10-15 of the Appeal Inspector's 09/12/2019 decision.

3. 10m of space between the houses and the ancient stone wall

3.1 On page 4/15 of Mr Wilkinson's 24/05/2019 Delegated Report and Decision, in the 4th lastparagraph, the planning history of No12 is set out. Prior applications were refused due to "harmfulintrusion into the visual buffer". I understand the application 10/05402/H to build a set-backextension on the side of No12 was only agreed after the owner reduced the extension's width soas to leave a full 10m of open space between the eastern edge of the extended house and theancient high stone wall along the western edge of Passage Road. Thus, a 10m principle/precedentwas established.

3.2 This new Application proposes a building whose maximum distance from the old stone wall isonly 9.6m, and that distance is achieved only at the furthest point, namely the front elevation.

Please see sketch below, which is taken from the applicant's site layout drawing. Due to thesignificant angle between the stone wall and the east elevation of the proposed new house, theopen space reduces to only 5.9m at the rear corner. And that 5.9m dimension occurs rightopposite the Conservation Area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlistedbuilding of merit. This 5.9m distance will materially impact the character and street scene viewedfrom Passage Road and the Conservation Area, and from Whytes Close. To respect the 10m line,the new building would need to be all above the purple curved line in the picture below.

3.3 As a further observation on this point, the applicant's "Planning Statement" states on page 2that the proposed new dwelling "mirrors" No12 and fits within the two chain-dotted lines extendfrom No 12. Firstly and rather obviously, the chain dotted lines drawn by the applicant are notparallel to the stone wall as they should be and as my purple line in 3.2 above is, so the wholeargument being made here for the applicant is frankly absurd. Secondly the house on No 12 has10m of clear space between its east elevation and the ancient stone wall, as agreed with theCouncil's planning department in the course of application 10/05402/H. The proposed newdwelling on No 1 has only 9.6m at the front and 5.9m at the back, so there is no logic in theapplicant's apparent argument that they are doing what had been done at No 12. Now, one mightsay that the difference of 0.4m at the front elevation isn't significant, but it is: during the process ofapplication 10/05402/H the new development was reduced in width by only 0.3m, to leave 10m ofclear open space rather than the 9.7m in the original architect's drawings, so in that case even0.3m was significant. But in any case the 5.9m of open space at the rear of the proposal for No 1shows that there would be much too profound a loss of open space with resultant harm to thecharacter of the area, the street scene and the setting of the Conservation area.

4. The 3m height of the stone wall

4.1 If you view this wall from Passage Road where it forms the boundary of No 1, it is about 3mhigh. But the site level of No 1 is elevated above the level of the road, so when viewed from thegarden of No 1 the wall is less than 3m high - I estimate about 2.3m high. This is all shownincorrectly in the applicant's elevation drawings, which incorrectly show the same ground levelboth sides of the wall. This estimated 2.3m height is the relevant dimension when considering thepoint made at the bottom of page 2 of the applicants Planning Statement that the wall screens theproposed new house from Passage Road and the Conservation Area. The 3m is not the relevantdimension. While 2.3m is of course a nice height, it is not anything exceptional (and nor for thatmatter is 3m) and does not materially reduce the harm that would be caused to the street sceneview from Passage Road. Indeed, the scale of this substantial wall makes it even more important -particularly when viewing the street scene from Whytes Close - that the 10m open space ismaintained.

5. Bristol Local Plan - Adopted July 2014 - policy DM27 and PAN 15 (Building lines)

5.1 My comments above about the proposed new house being 9.6m-5.9m from the old stone wall

are also relevant in the context of the building line parallel to Passage Road. Both No 1 (as itcurrently exists) and No 12 Whytes Close, and the house on Passage Road immediately north of12 Whytes Close, and the flats on Passage Road to the north of that house, clearly respect abuilding line in being set back about 10m from Passage Road. In granting permission for myextension at No 12 (reference 10/05402/H), and insisting that the extension be 4.5m wide not4.8m, the Council in effect confirmed this building line at 10m from the old wall and Passage Road.

5.2 DM27 provides:

"Infill developments on return frontages should be compatible with the open character of cornersites and be subservient in height, scale and massing to the primary frontage building","The layout and form of development, including the size, shape, form and configuration of blocksand plots, will be expected to ... (iv) Establish a coherent and consistent building line and setbackthat relate to the street alignment", and"A change in building line should clearly demonstrate benefits to the quality of the public space",

and PAN 15 provides:

"If modern buildings are to be successfully incorporated into an historic city such as Bristol theyshould respect the traditional building lines, established layout and plot sizes of the area"

5.3 The Application very clearly breaches all of the above policies as regards the building linealong the west side of Passage Road. The illustration in 3.2 above shows how far the proposednew house oversteps the (purple) building line parallel to Passage Road. .

6. Architecture and aesthetics

6.1 This is a subjective topic obviously but I submit that the double hipped roof to the rear of theproposed building is an inconsistent and (in this context and setting) ugly roof form. It would bevisible from Passage Road with a set back of only 5.9m as explained above, and it would bevisible from the Conservation area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlistedbuilding of merit.

6.2 The drawings say facing bricks and roof tiles will "match existing", but the existing house is 60years old and it would simply not be possible to match its materials. The new and existingmaterials would have different underlying colours and there would be differences due toweathering. That can be aesthetically acceptable in the case of an extension that is subservient toa main building, but here we have an attempt to create two matching semi-detached houses. Thefinished combined building would inevitably have a Frankenstein appearance, permanently, andthis is another reason why it would harm the street scene.

7. Conclusion

7.1 For all the reasons above I respectfully object to application ref 20/02624/F relating to 1Whytes Close, Westbury on Trym, BS9 3HU.

Yours sincerely

Jill Jones

Objection to Planning Application, 1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU, ref 20/02624/F,validated 24/07/2020 (the "Application").

1. Introduction

1 I object strongly to the Application. My reasons are set out in detail below but the main points arethat (i) this proposal would be an over development of this site offending the principle set down inprior planning decisions and appeals for both this site and No12 that 10m of open space at theends of Whytes Close) must be preserved in order to avoid harm to the character and appearanceof the area, and (ii) the Application clearly conflicts with the reasons for the refusal of Application19/01762/F to build a detached dwelling on this site, for example see page 3/15 of Mr Wilkinson's24/05/2019 Delegated Report and Decision where he talks of "enlarg[ing] a previous architecturalmistake" and "detract[ing] from the original spacious design".

2. The street setting, open space, visual buffer

2.1 Whytes Close is a small cul de sac with 12 houses, two detached and 10 semi-detached. Allwere built as a single development in and around 1959 on land that was previously part of theHenbury Hill Estate. Directly across Passage Road from No 1 Whytes Close there is aConservation Area.

2.2 A particular feature of the street scene is spaciousness: all the houses have quite largegardens and the spacing between adjacent buildings is quite generous, and in particular there isconsiderable spacing between the two houses adjacent to Passage Road (numbers 1 and 12) and

the ancient high stone wall that forms the western edge of this part of Passage Road. This wall issignificant in its own right, architecturally and in its contribution to the character of the local area.The two end houses are currently a considerable distance from this wall leaving an importantvisual buffer that this Application now seeks to reduce. The Application breaches the principles setout in both the Council's refusal of Application 19/01762/F to build a detached dwelling on this site,and the Appeal Inspector's dismissal of this applicant's appeal against that refusal. You will befamiliar with these prior decisions but for easy reference I would point out that the whole of the"Reasons" section in the Council's 03/06/2020 refusal of 19/01762/F deals with this aspect, as doparagraphs 10-15 of the Appeal Inspector's 09/12/2019 decision.

3. 10m of space between the houses and the ancient stone wall

3.1 On page 4/15 of Mr Wilkinson's 24/05/2019 Delegated Report and Decision, in the 4th lastparagraph, the planning history of No12 is set out. Prior applications (by prior owners of the house,not me) were refused due to "harmful intrusion into the visual buffer".

3.2 This new Application proposes a building whose maximum distance from the old stone wall isonly 9.6m, and that distance is achieved only at the furthest point, namely the front elevation.Please see sketch below, which is taken from the applicant's site layout drawing. Due to thesignificant angle between the stone wall and the east elevation of the proposed new house, theopen space reduces to only 5.9m at the rear corner. And that 5.9m dimension occurs rightopposite the Conservation Area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlistedbuilding of merit. This 5.9m distance will materially impact the character and street scene viewedfrom Passage Road and the Conservation Area, and from Whytes Close. To respect the 10m line,the new building would need to be all above the purple curved line in the picture below.

3.3 As a further observation on this point, the applicant's "Planning Statement" states on page 2that the proposed new dwelling "mirrors" No12 and fits within the two chain-dotted lines extendfrom No 12. Firstly and rather obviously, the chain dotted lines drawn by the applicant are notparallel to the stone wall as they should be and as my purple line in 3.2 above is, so the wholeargument being made here for the applicant is frankly absurd. Secondly the house on No 12 has10m of clear space between its east elevation and the ancient stone wall, as agreed with theCouncil's planning department in the course of application 10/05402/H. The proposed newdwelling on No 1 has only 9.6m at the front and 5.9m at the back, so there is no logic in theapplicant's apparent argument that they are doing what had been done at No 12. Now, one mightsay that the difference of 0.4m at the front elevation isn't significant, but it is: during the process ofapplication 10/05402/H the new development was reduced in width by only 0.3m, to leave 10m ofclear open space rather than the 9.7m in the original architect's drawings, so in that case even

0.3m was significant. But in any case the 5.9m of open space at the rear of the proposal for No 1shows that there would be much too profound a loss of open space with resultant harm to thecharacter of the area, the street scene and the setting of the Conservation area.

4. The 3m height of the stone wall

4.1 If you view this wall from Passage Road where it forms the boundary of No 1, it is about 3mhigh. But the site level of No 1 is elevated above the level of the road, so when viewed from thegarden of No 1 the wall is less than 3m high - I estimate about 2.3m high. This is all shownincorrectly in the applicant's elevation drawings, which incorrectly show the same ground levelboth sides of the wall. This estimated 2.3m height is the relevant dimension when considering thepoint made at the bottom of page 2 of the applicants Planning Statement that the wall screens theproposed new house from Passage Road and the Conservation Area. The 3m is not the relevantdimension. While 2.3m is of course a nice height, it is not anything exceptional (and nor for thatmatter is 3m) and does not materially reduce the harm that would be caused to the street sceneview from Passage Road. Indeed, the scale of this substantial wall makes it even more important -particularly when viewing the street scene from Whytes Close - that the 10m open space ismaintained.

5. Bristol Local Plan - Adopted July 2014 - policy DM27 and PAN 15 (Building lines)

5.1 My comments above about the proposed new house being 9.6m-5.9m from the old stone wallare also relevant in the context of the building line parallel to Passage Road. Both No 1 (as itcurrently exists) and No 12 Whytes Close, and the house on Passage Road immediately north of12 Whytes Close, and the flats on Passage Road to the north of that house, clearly respect abuilding line in being set back about 10m from Passage Road. The Council confirmed this buildingline at 10m from the old wall and Passage Road.

5.2 DM27 provides:

"Infill developments on return frontages should be compatible with the open character of cornersites and be subservient in height, scale and massing to the primary frontage building","The layout and form of development, including the size, shape, form and configuration of blocksand plots, will be expected to ... (iv) Establish a coherent and consistent building line and setbackthat relate to the street alignment", and"A change in building line should clearly demonstrate benefits to the quality of the public space",

and PAN 15 provides:

"If modern buildings are to be successfully incorporated into an historic city such as Bristol theyshould respect the traditional building lines, established layout and plot sizes of the area"

5.3 The Application very clearly breaches all of the above policies as regards the building linealong the west side of Passage Road. The illustration in 3.2 above shows how far the proposednew house oversteps the (purple) building line parallel to Passage Road. .

6. Architecture and aesthetics

6.1 This is a subjective topic obviously but I submit that the double hipped roof to the rear of theproposed building is an inconsistent and (in this context and setting) ugly roof form. It would bevisible from Passage Road with a set back of only 5.9m as explained above, and it would bevisible from the Conservation area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlistedbuilding of merit.

6.2 The drawings say facing bricks and roof tiles will "match existing", but the existing house is 60years old and it would simply not be possible to match its materials. The new and existingmaterials would have different underlying colours and there would be differences due toweathering. That can be aesthetically acceptable in the case of an extension that is subservient toa main building, but here we have an attempt to create two matching semi-detached houses. Thefinished combined building would inevitably have a Frankenstein appearance, permanently, andthis is another reason why it would harm the street scene.

7. Conclusion

7.1 For all the reasons above I respectfully object to application ref 20/02624/F relating to 1Whytes Close, Westbury on Trym, BS9 3HU.

Page 2 of 4

3. 10m of space between the houses and the ancient stone wall 3.1 On page 4/15 of Mr Wilkinson’s 24/05/2019 Delegated Report and Decision, in the 4th last paragraph, the planning history of No12 is set out. Prior applications (by prior owners of the house, not me) were refused due to “harmful intrusion into the visual buffer”. My own application 10/05402/H to build a set-back extension on the side of No12 was only agreed after I reduced the extension’s width so as to leave a full 10m of open space between the eastern edge of the extended house and the ancient high stone wall along the western edge of Passage Road. Thus, a 10m principle/precedent was established. (This history including correspondence with the Council on this 10m point was enclosed with my letter of 01/05/2019 objecting to planning application 19/01762/F, and see especially para 3.2 of that letter). 3.2 This new Application proposes a building whose maximum distance from the old stone wall is only 9.6m, and that distance is achieved only at the furthest point, namely the front elevation. Please see sketch below, which is taken from the applicant’s site layout drawing. Due to the significant angle between the stone wall and the east elevation of the proposed new house, the open space reduces to only 5.9m at the rear corner. And that 5.9m dimension occurs right opposite the Conservation Area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlisted building of merit. This 5.9m distance will materially impact the character and street scene viewed from Passage Road and the Conservation Area, and from Whytes Close. To respect the 10m line, the new building would need to be all above the purple curved line in the picture below.

Page 3 of 4

3.3 As a further observation on this point, the applicant’s “Planning Statement” states on page 2 that the proposed new dwelling “mirrors” No12 and fits within the two chain-dotted lines extend from No 12. Firstly and rather obviously, the chain dotted lines drawn by the applicant are not parallel to the stone wall as they should be and as my purple line in 3.2 above is, so the whole argument being made here for the applicant is frankly absurd. Secondly the house on No 12 has 10m of clear space between its east elevation and the ancient stone wall, as agreed with the Council’s planning department in the course of application 10/05402/H. The proposed new dwelling on No 1 has only 9.6m at the front and 5.9m at the back, so there is no logic in the applicant’s apparent argument that they are doing what had been done at No 12. Now, one might say that the difference of 0.4m at the front elevation isn’t significant, but it is: during the process of application 10/05402/H the new development was reduced in width by only 0.3m, to leave 10m of clear open space rather than the 9.7m in the original architect’s drawings, so in that case even 0.3m was significant. But in any case the 5.9m of open space at the rear of the proposal for No 1 shows that there would be much too profound a loss of open space with resultant harm to the character of the area, the street scene and the setting of the Conservation area. 4. The 3m height of the stone wall 4.1 If you view this wall from Passage Road where it forms the boundary of No 1, it is about 3m high. But the site level of No 1 is elevated above the level of the road, so when viewed from the garden of No 1 the wall is less than 3m high – I estimate about 2.3m high. This is all shown incorrectly in the applicant’s elevation drawings, which incorrectly show the same ground level both sides of the wall. This estimated 2.3m height is the relevant dimension when considering the point made at the bottom of page 2 of the applicants Planning Statement that the wall screens the proposed new house from Passage Road and the Conservation Area. The 3m is not the relevant dimension. While 2.3m is of course a nice height, it is not anything exceptional (and nor for that matter is 3m) and does not materially reduce the harm that would be caused to the street scene view from Passage Road. Indeed, the scale of this substantial wall makes it even more important -particularly when viewing the street scene from Whytes Close - that the 10m open space is maintained. 5. Bristol Local Plan – Adopted July 2014 – policy DM27 and PAN 15 (Building lines) 5.1 My comments above about the proposed new house being 9.6m-5.9m from the old stone wall are also relevant in the context of the building line parallel to Passage Road. Both No 1 (as it currently exists) and No 12 Whytes Close, and the house on Passage Road immediately north of 12 Whytes Close, and the flats on Passage Road to the north of that house, clearly respect a building line in being set back about 10m from Passage Road. In granting permission for my extension at No 12 (reference 10/05402/H), and insisting that the extension be 4.5m wide not 4.8m, the Council in effect confirmed this building line at 10m from the old wall and Passage Road. 5.2 DM27 provides:

“Infill developments on return frontages should be compatible with the open character of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing to the primary frontage building”, “The layout and form of development, including the size, shape, form and configuration of blocks and plots, will be expected to … (iv) Establish a coherent and consistent building line and setback that relate to the street alignment”, and “A change in building line should clearly demonstrate benefits to the quality of the public space”,

and PAN 15 provides:

Page 4 of 4

“If modern buildings are to be successfully incorporated into an historic city such as Bristol they should respect the traditional building lines, established layout and plot sizes of the area”

5.3 The Application very clearly breaches all of the above policies as regards the building line along the west side of Passage Road. The illustration in 3.2 above shows how far the proposed new house oversteps the (purple) building line parallel to Passage Road. . 6. Architecture and aesthetics 6.1 This is a subjective topic obviously but I submit that the double hipped roof to the rear of the proposed building is an inconsistent and (in this context and setting) ugly roof form. It would be visible from Passage Road with a set back of only 5.9m as explained above, and it would be visible from the Conservation area and Elmfield Gate Lodge, which is identified as an unlisted building of merit. 6.2 The drawings say facing bricks and roof tiles will “match existing”, but the existing house is 60 years old and it would simply not be possible to match its materials. The new and existing materials would have different underlying colours and there would be differences due to weathering. That can be aesthetically acceptable in the case of an extension that is subservient to a main building, but here we have an attempt to create two matching semi-detached houses. The finished combined building would inevitably have a Frankenstein appearance, permanently, and this is another reason why it would harm the street scene. 7. Conclusion 7.1 For all the reasons above I respectfully object to application ref 20/02624/F relating to 1 Whytes Close, Westbury on Trym, BS9 3HU. Yours sincerely

Rebecca Yirrell

My wife and I live opposite No.1 Whytes Close and strongly object to the proposeddevelopment of what was the beautiful garden of this house.

Whytes Close was built in 1959/1960, when cars were not an issue, not like the present day whenall 12 properties have at least 1/2 cars each, which can already cause parking problems especiallywhen family, friends, tradesmen etc. arrive. A 13th property would only exasperate this problemeven though it has residential parking it has no garage.

The Close itself is just a short one-lane road with one official on-road parking place, In schoolterm-time residents often find that their drives are blocked and cars parked anywhere including thepavements, causing problems for prams and wheelchairs etc. Under new legislation about tocome in pavement parking will not be allowed, so if cars park on the actual road there will be noway in or out of the Close for residents or any emergency vehicles.

We note that there will be an additional driveway thus making 4 merging onto the narrowest part ofthe road, near a very busy main road junction and a blind bend. Anyone driving into the Close andnot being observant would be an accident waiting to happen, especially with young children nowliving and playing in the Close.

We respectively request that Planning Permission is not GRANTED.

My principal objection to the proposed development is its dangerous effect on trafficentering this narrow single-track cul-de-sac.The proposed access is too near the blind corner with Passage Road, and it is clear the newproperty should share access with the existing one.Even this compromise must be considered in the light of the possibility of a ban on pavementparking and the frequent use of Whytes Close by parents taking their children to and from school.At present all delivery vans, utility vehicles and visitors' cars are regularly parked on the pavement.The building of this new property will only add to this chaos.

I object to the proposed development at 1 Whytes Close.

Firstly, the development would introduce a 4-bedroom house on an already densely packed Close.Densely packed in relation to the width of the road i.e. Whytes Close. There are currently 12residences with this proposed making 13. Every house on the close has at least 3 bedrooms and afew have 5. The reality here, considering the density on this narrow road, is that when anyone hasvisitors, deliveries, workmen, etc., further development could lead to 'social flash points'. Thisparticular area is not designed to handle this density. The flats at the Shipley Rd/Passage Rdalready cause traffic problems and safety issues at the unmarked crossing points used bystudents and families. It is also worth noting that parents/guardians from the nearby primaryschool also park on Whytes Close at drop off and pick up times adding to the issue.

There is currently one place for on-street parking and it is within the turning area/cul de sac ofWhytes Close. Some drivers park on the pavement and if this is done then there are an additional3 parking spaces, but this is not possible without covering the pavement meaning it is impassablefor a wheelchair. Dropping the curb for this proposed development removes one of these spacesand though it may add 2, it adds 2 to a private property. We would therefore end up with 3 parkingspaces in total instead of 4 exacerbating the issue.

And something else of note is the potential law change with regard to pavement parking. Thiscould be reviewed, passed and rolled out nationwide again adding to the likelihood and impact ofserious parking issues in the Close, spilling over into nearby Shipley Road and Passage Roadaffecting the safety of students, pedestrians, and motorists along it.

My second point is one to do with safeguarding the Conservation Area (CA). It can be reasonablyexpected that the owners/occupants of the proposed address will look to extend towards theperimeter fencing approaching the CA - left of the front elevation. If planning is granted,protections should be put in place for that strip of green prohibiting further development as per therelated refused appeal, Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/19/3231898W/19/3231898.

All considered, I believe a reasonable amendment to the proposal would be to build a 3-bedroomalternative with a well defined covenant prohibiting the building of any structure on the land closeto the CA within the proposed lines extrapolated from number 12.