As Chair of Sneyd Park Residents' Association I have to object to one aspect of thisplanning application.My objection relates to the proposed garden wall for the following reasons:-1. A 2m high wall, whether of brick or painted render, would be totally out of keeping with thelocation firstly being within the curtilage of the Grade 2 listed building opposite and, secondly,being at the entrance to the conservation area.2. Wall foundations will damage tree roots which will potentially result in the loss of trees. Thesetrees are within the Conversation area and should be protected.I trust these comments will be taken into consideration.

The application proposal is for "Proposed single storey side and rear extension and new2.0 high wall to replace existing timber fence to Old Sneed Park and Mariners Drive boundaries".This is supported aby a heritage statement and a fairly comprehensive arboricultural report.

With regard to the proposed extension, the arboricultural report makes it clear that, if the proposedworks are carried out in accordance with the specification stated in the report, then there will be nodamage to any trees either in the garden of the property or in the road outside. As such, I have noproblems with this part of the application.

The second part of the application relates to replacing the existing timber fence with a new 2.0 mhigh wall. With regard to this part of the application. question 6 of the application states that, in itsdescription of the existing materials and finishes that "Old Sneed Road boundary - approximately2.0m high wall with render and masonry paint finish with concrete coping to top incorporatingdouble timber entrance gates. Old Sneed Park / Mariners Drive boundaries - approximately 2.0mhigh timber fencing". With regard to the proposed works, it is stated that the intention is to "OldSneed Park / Mariners Drive boundaries - replace existing approximately 2.0m high timber fencingwith approximately 2.0m high wall with render and masonry paint finish with concrete coping to topto match existing Old Sneed Road boundary".

My objection relates to the design and construction of the proposed wall.

With regard to the design:

1. The existing wall in Old Sneed Road is not rendered with a masonry paint finish but appears to

be constructed of brick and is only 1.8m tall not 2.0m.2. Likewise the existing timber fence is only marginally over 1.8m tall not 2.0m.3. A 2m high wall, whether of brick or painted render, would be totally out of keeping with thelocation firstly being within the curtilage of the Grade 2 listed building opposite and, secondly,being at the entrance to the conservation area where there are few, if any, similar boundary walls.This point is not covered in the heritage statement supplied.

With regard to the construction:

1. The arboricultural report, whilst fairly comprehensive with regard to the extension, makes noreference to the proposed wall and, in fact, fails to list one tree adjacent to the property in OldSneed Park.2. The lack of any reference to a wall in the arboricultural report is surprising since a wall of thetype and dimensions proposed would require substantial foundations with a significant danger tothe tree roots whereas the report is at pains to demonstrate that the construction of the proposedextension will not harm them.3. Tree T01 in the report has caused significant root heave damage to the pavement whichindicates that its roots are very close to the surface.4. Digging any sort of foundations for the wall, even if done by hand, could cause major damage tothe tree roots and impact on their safety.5. As mentioned by our local tree champion, the danger to the roots from the chemicals in theconcrete which would be needed for the wall's foundations has the potential to further harm thetrees. This danger is highlighted in section 9.5.2 of the arboricultural report when talking about thefoundations for the extension.

Hello

I have no views on the proposed house extension, but there are a couple of things regarding theproposed wall that seem odd.

1. The propose wall is not mentioned in the Arboriculture (tree) Report - which is very odd.

2. Given the proximity of the wall to the 4 important trees (not the 3 mentioned in the report) thefailure to capture the proposed wall in the report surely means that an updated report is needed.(Note - the 4th tree is also on the Council / pavement side - towards the back of the garden.)

3. The proposal for a 2m high blockwork wall with render-painted finish is a surprise, as there areno clear examples of such an existing fence of this type in the local area - so hence surely this is"out of character" with the local area?

4. The overwhelming vast majority of garden walling in the local area is exposed brickwork to 1 of2 foot height, with either timber panelling, railing or planting upper-sections - or no upper section.

5. Drawing BL/20/5(a) "Proposed Elevation" carries the note saying that the proposed 2mblockwork wall render-painted will match the existing boundary wall on Old Sneed Road. It will not- as that wall is exposed brickwork. This is a factual error in the submission.

6. The drawing also carries the note that the new blockwork wall will be built utilising the existingfence post pad foundations - and rely upon a ground beam to span between those pads. This is a

worthy idea to minimise the amount of foundation trenching works needed near the trees - butgood luck with this proposal ! Surely this proposal will not work given the additional (significant)weight of the new blockwork wall and its height. I would have thought that a reasonably substantialstrip foundation will be needed along the full length of the wall (given it's height and weight) but Iwould be happy to be proved wrong!

7. Not only is the proposed white(?) painted wall out of character with the area, the proposal surelypresents a significant graffiti-painting risk. This length of white(?) rendered painted wall might wellbecome "a magnet" for graffiti artists. Has this matter been thought about ?

Note 1- Graffiti artists don't tender to like timber panel fencing as the their paint is absorbed by thetimber and hence the painting doesn't stand out.Note 2 - Similarly, graffiti artists do not like exposed brickwork walls, as the textured nature of thesurface against makes it difficult to paint.Note 3 - But graffiti artists really like rendered painted walls.

8. A concrete-blockwork wall will have a significant higher carbon-footprint attached to it -compared to a short-height-brick wall with timber panel "uppers" - even when lifetime maintenancecarbon numbers are added in. I do not understand how carbon-footprint impact numbers fits withthe Planning Application Process, but concrete has very high carbon numbers. Has this matterbeen considered?

9. There is highly mature planting behind the existing timber fencing, so the reasons for the designchoice of a blockwork wall (ahead of "conventional timber panelling") is not clear to me - as thisreasoning is not explained in the documents submitted with the planning application. The solidlarge mass of the blockwork wall will change the aesthetic character of the local area.

So, in summary, the proposed wall has not been considered in the Arboriculture Report and the2m white(?) rendered blockwork wall does not (in my opinion) fit the character of the area - sohence I feel the proposal for this type of wall needs further consideration - and hence should beopposed at this stage.

I hope these comments are helpful and useful - and look forward to seeing a revised proposal thatdoes "fit in" and it's impact on the trees has been considered and mitigated.

best regards

I would like to object and agreed with the comments made in the letter from Mrs SFrench, 18 Old Sneed Avenue. The trees adjacent to this property between Old Sneed Road andMariners Drive are beautiful road trees and are in a Conservation Area. The proposed building of awall instead of the existing fence would mean a foundation being built which would disturb theroots of these trees and could potentially kill them. As this is a Conservation Area, these trees areprecious and a solid wall against a wooden fence is unnecessary. The proposed extensions willgive sufficient privacy to the property and the fence is sufficient to extend this privacy to the rest ofthe house and garden.

I am neutral about the extension, but I object to the building of the wall around thegarden because of its likely effect upon the many important trees.

This Application is to both build a side and rear extension to the house, and to replace the fencebetween Old Sneed Park and the Mariners Drive footpath with a wall. It has a /H suffix as aHouseholder Application, but this Application affects trees that have TPOs and trees that are in aConservation Area even though they might not have TPOs, and I very much hope that thePlanning Officer will seek an opinion from the Council's Tree Officer about the impact on the trees.I note that the Council's AO Mr Matthew Bennett has been made aware of the proposed work andI hope he will be asked to report for the Planning Portal.Whilst a lot is said about the effect that the extensions might have on the several very importanttrees within a few metres of the extensions, I can find nothing said about the works that will benecessary within the RPAs of 2 Local Authority owned trees and 3 TPO trees in the garden of No43 during the building of the garden wall to replace the fence - which presumably will requirefoundations to be dug and then concrete poured in. If the two trees on the verge of the road werenot owned by the Local Authority it is likely that they would be subjects of a TPO. But they arewithin the Conservation Area.This is an attractive wooded area. The importance provided by the amenity of the trees isevidenced by the numerous TPOs deservedly placed on the several trees in this "woodland".TPOs 198, 697,1303,1412,1386, as well as the TPO 633 mentioned under "constraints".These 5 trees must be at risk from the digging of the foundations and the toxins in concrete soclose to their trunks well within their Root Protection Areas, and yet this has not been mentioned.It has been stated that, because hard standing is already within the RPAs of the trees, and this willnot be disturbed by the works; and as the extensions are to be timber framed "Subsequently the

only excavation necessary will be holes to fix the uprights for the timber structure". But I challengethis. What about the wall which is to be built between the side extension and the two LA treesoutside the garden, and within the RPAs of the 3 TPO trees in the back garden?There is no mention of hand digging for that lengthy trench nor of the avoidance of chemicals toxicfor tree roots being used as foundations.If this is true ".....the position of the side extension is within the calculated Root Protection Area ofthe existing trees. Any excavation or soil compaction in this area could potentially lead to rootseverance or damage. This could subsequently lead to a reduction in the trees ability to take upwater and nutrients, which may lead to a deterioration in the tree's health. The proposed extensionwill be timber framed construction supported on wooden upright fixed into the ground. The existinglean-to structure is constructed on wooden uprights, it is intended to replace these to form theframework for the new extension. If possible, the existing post holes will be utilised for the newuprights. If this is not possible new post holes will be excavated by hand in accordance withBS5937:2012. Existing hard surfacing covering the area will be retained, to protect underlyingroots, and incorporated into the new extension. 7.2 The position of the side extension is within thecalculated Root Protection Area of T03. Any excavation or soil compaction in this area couldpotentially lead to root severance or damage. The proposed extension will be timber framedconstruction supported on wooden upright fixed into the ground. Post holes for the new uprightswill be excavated by hand in accordance with BS5937:2012. The existing hard surfaced patio,covering the area, will be retained to protect underlying roots and incorporated into the newextension......" then it must also be true that the wall is closer to the trunks of the two LA trees thanthe side of the side extension, affecting the more major roots of each nearby tree.There is much merit in the effort that has been taken to consider the impact of the extensions uponthe trees and their roots - but "What about the wall?"Apart from this sentence in the Application Form "Proposed single storey side and rear extensionand new 2.0 high wall to replace existing timber fence to Old Sneed Park and Mariners Driveboundaries" I can find no mention of, or consideration of the impact on the trees and their futurehealth, caused by the works associated with the new boundary wall during its building and then itsexistence.