My property shares a boundary with the end of the garden at 1 Druid road.My key areas of concern with regards to this planning application relate to the effect on treescurrently in and around the proposed site, the effect on the extensive wildlife in the vicinity and thedamage the build would be likely to cause to the fragile ecosystem existing in this unique area ofBristol.

Planning policies and general concernsI am at a loss as to why a planning application to build has been submitted, or is being consideredin this area, as the proposed development is clearly not in line with National or Local planningpolicies. It is a Garden site in a Conservation Area within a development (Druid Road), protectedby its own Covenant. In addition the entire area is covered by a Tree Preservation Order.I am not aware of any exceptional circumstances that might justify this development, which would,if allowed, in no way benefit the City's housing plans.

'The new house has been carefully designed to ensure that it preserves the character of theConservation Area' (Pre Application Responses P32)As it is agreed that the garden of 1 Druid Road is in a Conservation Area and is not a Brown fieldsite, surely any discussion regarding building in this garden is inappropriate.

As 1 Druid Road has one of the smallest gardens in the Road acceptance of this proposal mustsurely open the way for dismissal of all current covenants and planning policies, such that allresidents living in this area could convert their gardens to potential revenue streams.

Tree PreservationBristol Council enforces a strict policy regarding the removal or even pruning of trees in this area.The Arboricultural Report provided with the Application, produced in December 2019, disregardsthe magnificent mature magnolias, cotoneaster and laurels, all of which are between 5 and 9meters high, as being of no consequence. According to Sir David Attenborough, the magnolia treewas the first plant in the World that produced flowers for pollination. So why dismiss an example ofthis tree?In any of the neighbours' gardens in the locality 'any tree with a trunk diameter of 75mm, whenmeasured at 1.5 meters above the ground, would automatically be protected by a TreePreservation Order. Pruning or tree maintenance has to be agreed by consultation with theappropriate department in Bristol City Council.The only mature trees to be retained in the drawings are shown as belonging to 1 Druid road.However, in reality, they are in neighbours' gardens.How can their safety be guaranteed? It is unlikely that any of these "mature trees" on theboundaries with 1 Druid Road could survive the root damage, they would sustain if excavations ofthe scale proposed take place. Amongst these trees are two ash trees over 9 meters tall in No 2Druid Road's garden and a 40 year old apple tree and a line of firs on my property.Would the developers be responsible for 'like for like' replacements?Would the council underwrite and enforce it? Would this set a precedent for the future? Could anyhouse owner in Tree Preservation Areas going forwards destroy any tree, if they wanted to buildsomething?

Wild Life.We note the current owner in his comments is dismissive of wild life in the area. But thereis a tremendous diversity of creatures here. Foxes and badgers are not our favourites as theymake holes in our fences and pursue the hens but they were here long before us so we rub along.In addition to other mammals such as deer, hedgehogs, bats, field mice, door mice and voles,there is a wide diversity of amphibians and insects such as: slow worms, frogs, toads, newts,ground bees, and all manor of moth. Others have mentioned the large diversity of birds from thesparrow hawk and woodpeckers to the multitude of . I have attached pictures of some of thecreatures we have found within a metre of our boundary fence this year.There is a tremendousdiversity of creatures living here. Foxes and badgers together with many other mammals such asmuntjac, hedgehogs, bats, field mice, door mice. There is a wide diversity of amphibians andinsects such as: slow worms, frogs, toads, newts, ground bees, carpenter bees, miner bees, stagbeetles, and all manner of insects, moths and butterflies. Bats and owls use the area as theirhunting grounds. In addition to which there is a diverse selection of birds ranging from sparrowhawks, peregrin falcon, green, lesser and greater spotted woodpeckers to the multitude of smallbirds in the tit and finch families. I also have nesting dunnocks, treecreepers, bramblings, songand mistle thrushes and wrens.

The creatures highlighted in bold are, I believe, protected and licences are required to survey theirnumbers before licences can be requested for any changes to their habitat.I have made no reference to the build of the proposed property, but feel I must comment on the

glass lantern, which is totally inappropriate. It is strange that the proposed dwelling would be builtunderground and camouflaged by a grass roof, only to be 'flagged' by an enormous glass lantern.The light emitting from this, will beam high into the sky at night, not only disrupting the local animalnightlife and local neighbouring houses and gardens. This surely is in complete contradiction withthe Council's Policy to reduce light pollution in Bristol?

Drainage and retaining wallsThere is an existing underground water course running down the hill through our garden and thatof 1 Druid Road. It is about 60 to 100 centimetres below the surface and I believe sustains manyof the amphibians mentioned above. Given the exceptional weather conditions that are becomingincreasingly frequent, how can anyone consider any construction that would compromise thisdelicate topology? I have seen no mention of how the bank or water courses would be protectedduring or following the extensive excavations that would be required for such a construction.

Given the depth of the extensive excavation work required for this project what plans have beenprepared to protect the existing bank and water course?Is there a plan to ensure sufficient drainage while protecting the water course?What provision is being made to ensure that any agreements are adhered to, and will the councilbe underwriting the project?

ConclusionIn conclusion we are indeed all privileged to live in this area, but with privilege comesresponsibility. It is our responsibility and duty to protect and preserve our environment and fragilebio-diversity for the future, rather than compromise or destroy it for a possible short term gain.I therefore earnestly request Bristol City Council to unconditionally refuse this application.

I did send this document with images to the council twice by email and receipt was acknowledged.But as My comments are still not up I have at least loaded the text.

Planning Application 20/04334/F - rear of 1 Druid Road, Stoke Bishop, Bristol, BS9 1LJ

As a resident of Druid Road I wish to object to the application in full for the following reasons:

1. The property is within a Conservation Area - the Sneyd Park Conservation Area.

1.1 Your website says:

"There are 33 conservation areas in Bristol. Conservation areas have a special character andappearance and we aim to preserve or enhance them."

1.1.a My objection relating to your own objectives is that the proposed building is not in keepingwith the special character and appearance of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area.

1.1.a.i. The area mainly consists of 1930s and Victorian buildings of a traditional nature.

1.1.a.ii The proposed dwelling is a modern building not in keeping with the design of the buildingsin Druid Road or the Sneyd Park Conservation Area.

1.2 The Sneyd Park Conservation Area Enhancement Statement includes as Key Issue no. (3) -Land Use "further sub-division of large gardens.....would increase the density of development anddiminish the open character of the Conservation Area."

1.2.a The plans sub-divide the garden of No. 1 Druid Road.

1.2.b There is no access to the proposed new building without demolishing, and not replacing, thegarage belonging to the original period house.

1.2.c The density of development is being increased and therefore the open character of theConservation Area is being diminished.

1.2.d The nature of the houses in Druid Road is that of wide drives with plenty of off street parkingand/or a garage.

1.2.e Access to the proposed new dwelling is along the side of the existing period dwelling,reducing the open character of the Conservation Area.

1.3 The Sneyd Park Conservation Area Enhancement Statement includes as Key Issue no. (5) -Townscape "The sub-division of large gardens into plots for smaller houses, if left unchecked willdamage the historic pattern and character of building in the Conservation Area."

1.3.a The subdivision of the garden of No. 1 Druid Road is not in accordance with the Sneyd ParkConservation Area Enhancement Statement.

1.3.b The Planning Application does not address this, merely stating that an existing house will notbe lost.

1.3.c The garage of No. 1 Druid Road will be demolished. The garage appears to be the same ageas the house and is in keeping with the character of the area.

1.4 The Sneyd Park Conservation Area Enhancement Statement includes as Key Issue no. (6) -Townscape "The layout, form and design of new housing developments, particularly with theiropen plan layouts, has in the past been out of keeping with the essential character of the area.

1.4.a The design of the proposed new dwelling is modern and largely underground and is not inkeeping with the essential character of the area.

1.4.b The proposed dwelling has a relatively small area for four bedrooms and is not in keepingwith other houses in Druid Road and the Sneyd Park Conservation Area as regards the size of therooms.

1.5 The Sneyd Park Conservation Area Enhancement Statement includes as GeneralEnhancement Objectives no. (1) "Sub-division of large gardens will only be considered in thoseparts of the Conservation Area where the character and pattern of development will not besignificantly affected."

1.5.a The pattern of the development of Druid Road is large open houses with large rooms andlarge gardens, all built in a traditional manner.

1.5.b The proposed modern dwelling will significantly affect the character of the Sneyd ParkConservation Area by reducing the size of the garden of No. 1 Druid Road so that it is no longer inkeeping with other houses in the road, by inserting a house without direct access to the road andby the fact that it is modern in design.

1.6 The Sneyd Park Conservation Area Enhancement Statement includes as GeneralEnhancement Objectives no. (5) "The layout, form. design, landscaping and means of enclosure innew residential developments in the Conservation Area needs to respect the traditional formscharacteristic of the area."

1.6.a The layout, form and design of the proposed new dwelling are modern and do not respectthe traditional forms characteristic of the area, as noted above.

2. Brownfield Site

2.1 The Planning Application states "The site is brownfield land within an existing settlement."

2.2 The Government definition of Brownfield Land states "This excludes:...land in built-up areassuch as residential gardens"

2.3 The land forming the garden of No. 1 Druid Road has never been built on and was a fieldbefore it was the garden.

3 Parking, Driving, Pedestrians and Access

3.1 The existing off street parking and garage facilities of No. 1 Druid Road will be reduced by theproposed new dwelling as the garage will be demolished.

3.2 Access to the proposed dwelling will use the same drive as the existing house. There is littleroom for parking and manoeuvring of cars for two households with four bedrooms and potentially alot of cars in one existing drive.

3.3 Access for pedestrians to the proposed new dwelling will use the same drive and this may notbe safe.

3.2 The proposed new dwelling will create additional pressure on parking, particularly at theopening of Druid Road.

3.3 The opening of Druid Road is already subject to pressure regarding parked cars from

inhabitants from houses on Stoke Hill and possibly commuters as parking restrictions further upStoke Hill and on the commuter route into Bristol extend further out of the city, the bus stop beingclose to the end of Druid Road.

3.4 Druid Road is a narrow road and becomes difficult to navigate if cars are parked on both sidesof the road. More cars requiring parking would make this worse.

3.5 The fact that the road is narrow causes cars to park on the pavement, causing problems forpedestrians. If more cars park in the road this will become worse.

4 Wildlife and Trees

4.1 The gardens on this side of Druid Road contain Badger runs. Badgers are a protected species.I could not see that consideration had been given to the Badgers.

4.2 Gardens provide habitats for various wildlife, mammels, birds, butterflies, bees and otherinsects. The mature garden of No. 1 Druid Road will provide such habitats, which should not bedestroyed or disrupted.

4.3 It is proposed that many trees are to be felled. Trees are an important way of removing CO2from the atmosphere as well as providing habitats for wildlife and should be encouraged, notremoved.

I strongly object to this planning application.

Please may you add information regarding the above application.With reference to the statement submitted by 35 Stoke Hill regarding 11A DRUID ROAD and specifically the word "INFILL". May I correct their statement.As outlined in the original deeds of 1934, 11A(SELF) is not an infill but one of many plots outlined prior to development . Date shown is June 20 1934.Infill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels WITHIN existing urban areas that are ALREADY largely developed. Thank you.

The Panel did not object to this proposal but had a number of concerns regarding itseffect on the character of the conservation area.The conservation area is characterised by houses set in large gardens. Although the impact of thenew building would be reduced by it being set into the ground, the increased density would not bein accordance with this character.The proposed new building would be of a similar size to the existing house, rather than subsidiaryto it as would be expected for such additional development in the conservation area.While the visual impact of the house is reduced by being set partly into the ground, the panelconsidered that this compromised the quality of the accommodation.The existing house would lose the use of the garage and driveway for parking. This is likely to leadto the lawned front garden being paved or gravelled and used for parking. The cumulative effect offront garden parking is harmful to the special character of this part of the conservation area.The proposed building would be within the root protection area of T10, but this is not addressed inthe application.

2

The plot is in a high risk area for surface water flooding (https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/risk). No assessment has been made for this both in the sunken lower rooms or increased hard surface area.

No assessment has been made for adequate gradient for rainwater and sewerage drainage. Due to the sunken building I expect the gradient to be insufficient. A drainage pump could create a noise pollution.

No assessment has been made for adequate parking for the combined cars with existing 1 Druid Road. The proposal is that 2 cars from each house would be parked on a shared drive, 4 cars blocking each other in.

There is a direct view from outside the house, particularly from the side by the front door with no screening at all, into the rear bedrooms of houses both on Druid Road and also across and down on 41, 43 and 45 Stoke Hill.

Intended use

No mention has been made intended use of the property, although the owners of 1 Druid Road do not occupy it and rent it out, so this could be assumed to continue for the new property as well. The very small bedroom sizes, lack of outdoor area, lack of internal and external storage facilities and very limited daylight all raise my expectation this is not greatly suitable for a family home. The current property owners have a number of existing Airbnb properties and I believe they would use this new property in the same way. My concern is that the property would then be neglected, the hedging and planted flat roof would not be maintained and become overgrown and an eyesore. I am also concerned that residents would use the flat roof as outdoor space/terrace, then overlooking all neighbours from a greater height.

I fully object to the application and ask that this application is rejected in full.

I wish to object fully and in the strongest possible terms to Application Reference: 20/04334/F.

Whilst prima facie well-constructed, this application fails to address numerous planning issuesincluding numerous of those it purports to address directly, namely through self-certification andunsubstantiated claims.

More specifically my objections are as follows;

1. The use of the term 'brownfield land' and similar terminology with the intended same meaningthroughout the document is incorrect and meets neither the common understanding of the termnor the meaning as laid out in the Glossary of the online Planning Portal which specificallyexcludes "...land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens..."

The location of the proposed dwelling is clearly and by any meaning a greenfield site and adevelopment of this nature would constitute garden infill.

2. The proposed dwelling is inconsistent with Druid Rd itself and with the greater Sneyd ParkConservation Area. The area is characterised by large detached houses of traditional design withlarge gardens.

Per 130. in the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states that theproposed design is a 'partially recessed design, the style of the new dwelling is not conventionaland traditional but responds to its situation'.

Simply stating that a design responds to its situation does not make it so. There are no otherpartially recessed dwellings in Druid Rd, nor anything remotely similar in design or character. It inno way responds to the recognised special character of Sneyd Park Conservation Area, nor morespecifically Druid Rd. Instead the design only seeks to address the desire to build a dwelling ingarden infill.3. Per 197. in the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states 'Theproposals have been carefully considered so that they do not have any adverse impact on thesignificance of the existing buildings in the conservation area."This form of 'self-certification' regarding adverse impact is surely insufficient to meet planningrequirements.In impacting at least seven (7) properties directly (those with adjoining boundaries shown indocument 'LOCATION_PLAN-2734388.pdf') and many others indirectly all of which enjoy thespecial character of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area, this proposed development clearly has asignificant adverse impact on the significance of the existing buildings in the conservation area.4. Per Policy BCS5 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states"The site for the new house is on a previously developed site in the rear garden of the existinghouse."As stated previously, the rear garden of the existing house is a greenfield site, has not previouslybeen developed and is therefore inappropriate for the proposed dwelling.5. Per Policy BSC18 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states"The house will provide sufficient space for everyday activities and exceeds the space standards."Druid Road and the roads adjoining it are characterised by large detached houses. Whilst theproposed dwelling may 'exceed the space standards' it is by no means consistent with adjoiningdwellings.6. Per Policy BCS20 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states"The new house re-uses previously developed land..."As previously stated, this is a greenfield garden site which is not 'previously developed land' as theapplicant incorrectly states.7. Per Policy BCS20 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states"The density is in accordance with the existing adjoining houses."By definition of the fact that the proposal is in the rear garden of an existing house, it is increasingthe density of both the existing property and the proposed new property. To clearly illustrate thepoint, the adjoining houses enjoy rear gardens that are approximately 30+ metres in length, whilethe rear garden of the proposed dwelling will be only 5 metres in length.Furthermore, the aforementioned statement "The density is in accordance with the existingadjoining houses." is a direct contradiction to the statement by the applicant in Policy DM21 that"There will be an insignificant increase in the existing very loss density."As already clearly illustrated, neither statement is true but are constructed solely for the purposesof appearing to satisfy planning requirements for this application.8. Per Policy BCS21 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicantstates; "The new house will contribute positively to the local area, character and identity."

I object to the simple catch-all statement by the applicant and the seeming self-certification withoutany substantiating evidence. I contend that the proposed new dwelling would have a negative anddetrimental impact on the local area, character and identity.9. Per Policy BCS21 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicantstates; "...and additional planting will be provided to create a substantial green infrastructure."Whilst the term 'substantial green infrastructure' is subjective, in this instance it is notsubstantiated relative to adjoining properties nor when viewed chronologically. In relative terms the'substantial green infrastructure' is significantly less/smaller than adjoining properties. Viewedchronologically, the 'substantial green infrastructure' is certainly less so than the status quo which,with the exception of a few minor garden paths is 'entirely green infrastructure.'Creative license has been shown by the applicant in choosing to show the green roof of theproposed new dwelling as green in document 'PROPOSED_PART_SITE_PLAN-2734396.pdf' butnot show the lawn or other green areas (the entire space) that currently exist in document'EXISTING_PART_SITE_PLAN-2734394.pdf'. Visually, this leads to a false impression in terms ofthe green space in the proposed and existing plans.10. Per Policy BCS21 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; in relation tosafeguarding amenity of existing development, the applicant only responds with regard to windowsand screening. Amenity is described in the glossary of planningportal.co.uk as 'A positive elementor elements that contribute to the overall character or enjoyment of an area. For example, openland, trees, historic buildings and the inter-relationship between them, or less tangible factors suchas tranquillity.'

Not only have the concepts of overall character, enjoyment of the area, open land and the inter-relationship between them not been addressed, but I strongly believe that the proposal in questionwould have a significant detrimental impact on these elements. Simply screening windows fromneighbours does not make a development acceptable, nor does it address the aforementionedsection of Policy BCS21.

11. Per Policy DM21 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted; the applicant states"The new house will not cause any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the areaas there will be with only glimpsed views from the street."

In answering as above, the applicant only addressed character and appearance purely from theperspective of the street.

Character is defined in the Glossary of The Planning Portal as "A term relating to ConservationAreas or Listed Buildings, but also to the appearance of any rural or urban location in terms of itslandscape or the layout of streets and open spaces, often giving places their own distinct identity."

The concepts of 'landscape' and 'open spaces' in the definition above have not been addressed,nor have the 'character and appearance' been considered from the residents perspective.

12. Per Policy DM1 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "All of theBristol Core Strategy and Development Management policies have been examined in thisstatement and it is shown that the proposals accord with all of these policies.As has been illustrated throughout this objection, numerous key policies have not been addressedand as such the proposal does not accord as suggested.13. Per Policy DM26 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "Thefootprint of the new house is aligned with the existing house to respect the local pattern."The local pattern is of houses in rows parallel with the street, with a street frontage and large reargardens. The new house in no way respects this pattern.14. Per Policy DM26 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "Theproposals do not involve the loss of any buildings or structures apart from a single garage."The houses on Druid Road are characterised by the inclusion of a garage to one side. To removethe above-mentioned garage for this development would have a detrimental impact on thecharacter of Druid Road and the wider Sneyd Park Conservation Area.15. Per Policy DM26 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "Thereis not a unified character or pattern to the existing development."The properties on Druid Road were constructed in the inter-war period of the 1930's by onedeveloper, namely Mr W Rossiter. As a result, the houses do indeed have a unified characterinfluenced by the 'Arts and Crafts' style, but differ in their detailing resulting in a cohesive look andfeel that is well recognised and appreciated by local residents.16. Per Policy DM26 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "Theaccess uses the existing driveway so that there is not any adverse impact on appearance, safetyor amenity."There is an adverse impact on appearance because the proposals require the existing garage tobe demolished thereby making the appearance of 1 Druid Road inconsistent with the majority ofother properties on the street.17. Per Policy DM29 of the Design Access and Heritage Statement submitted states that; "Eachexternal space is overlooked by windows to provide surveillance."As shown on document 'PROPOSED_WEST_ELEVATION-2734403.pdf', there are no windowson the west elevation, yet as shown in document 'PROPOSED_PART_SITE_PLAN-2734396.pdf'there is external space between the proposed new dwelling and the boundary with 3 Druid Road.The statement made by the applicant is therefore incorrect.18. Per document 'EXISTING_AND_PROPOSED_DRUID_ROAD_VIEWS-2734409.pdf' thesedrawings are inaccurate and show 'creative license' by the applicant in their positioning andownership of trees. Many, if not the majority of the trees shown within the boundary of 1 DruidRoad are actually either on the boundary with adjoining properties or indeed belong to adjoiningproperties. This is clearly illustrated when comparing document 'EXISTING_BLOCK_PLAN-2734389.pdf' with document 'EXISTING_AND_PROPOSED_DRUID_ROAD_VIEWS-2734409.pdf'.

19. The trees shown on the left hand side of the driveway in the second image in document'EXISTING_AND_PROPOSED_DRUID_ROAD_VIEWS-2734409.pdf' are in fact in neighbouring

properties, thereby giving a false impression of what the proposed view from Druid Road wouldlook like. This inaccuracy is clearly shown when compared with document'EXISTING_BLOCK_PLAN-2734389.pdf' which is a fair and accurate representation of thelocation of trees currently.

20. The document SHADOWING_DIAGRAMS_21ST_MARCH_EQUINOX-2734406.pdf isinaccurate. The applicant has chosen to show the shadow of the various existing fences but failsto show the shadow cast by the significant new hedge/ planting being proposed as shown in thefourth image in EXISTING_AND_PROPOSED_DRUID_ROAD_VIEWS-2734409.pdf.

21. Regarding the Public Comment submitted by Chris Hunt of Forest Lodge Flax Bourton Bristol-Supports (full) on 18th October 2020, I wish to note that Chris Hunt is one of the two applicantsnamed on the Application Form for this application.

22. Regarding the Public Comment submitted by Ms C Barton of 15 Radnor Road Gatcombe-Supports (full) on 18th October 2020, I wish to note that the address given (15 Radnor RoadGatcombe) does not exist, calling into question the legitimacy of this Public Comment.In conclusion, I believe that this application is totally unsuitable for the location, does not addressnumerous planning requirements and would benefit one non-resident owner to the detriment ofboth the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and adjoining properties.

I wish to object to the proposed application on the following grounds:

1. Categorisation of the land.In the application, the rear garden is described as 'brownfield land" in numerous places. This isincorrect terminology - in various planning regulations, the latest of which is the 2019 NationalPlanning Policy Framework, it is explicitly stated that the definition of brownfield land excludes"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens". Thus the garden of 1 Druid Road cannot betermed as brownfield land.

2. Parking.The existing house, a 4-bedroom residence, has a garage and space in the drive for a further car,although I understand that a car is frequently parked on the road. The proposed developmentincludes the demolition of the garage (although not specifically applied for) and the provision ofjust one parking place for the proposed 4-bedroom house. Thus on this site, in place of one 4-beddwelling, there would be two houses with a total of 8 bedrooms yet with provision for only 2parking spaces. 4-bedroom houses in Stoke Bishop typically have at least 2, more often 3, carsper house so that there will be up to 6 cars at this location yet only 2 parking spaces. Where willthe remaining cars be parked? On the road at the entrance to a narrow cul-de-sac to the detrimentof all residents in the road, not to mention making access difficult for emergency and deliveryvehicles.

3. Development of private gardens.Bristol Council's own Policy DM21 specifically states that the policy is "to retain private residentialgardens in the city". The Design and Access Statement in the application says that 'the existing

house has a very large garden'', yet it is no larger that in the majority of the other houses in DruidRoad, actually some houses in the road and in Stoke Hill have larger gardens. In fact the gardenof 1 Druid Road with a steep slope is probably the least suitable for a development even it it werenot in a conservation area. This application would reduce the rear garden of 1 Druid Road to onehalf of its current size while the proposed new house would have insignificant garden space,neither being appropriate for the character of the road. Furthermore, it would be an inevitableconsequence that when the existing house is sold - as it will be - new owners will immediatelyseek to concrete over the front garden for additional car parking space, leading to further loss ofgreen area.

4. Conservation Area.Sneyd Park has been a designated Conservation Area for over 30 years and this has played animportant role in maintaining the nature of the area as one with a special character and pattern ofdevelopment that must be preserved and/or enhanced by any permitted development. Thisapplication would seriously affect the character and built environment of the road, while theproposed house, which can only be described as a partly-buried bunker, would be utterlyinappropriate in any conservation area.

5 The Environment.From my Father's involvement with the Old Sneyd Park Nature Reserve over many years Iappreciate the importance of the provision and maintenance of green areas to allow wildlife of alltypes to flourish. Stoke Bishop, and indeed the whole of Bristol, is particularly favoured to havethis nature reserve which is supported by the full range of gardens throughout the area. Any lossof garden space is a blow against the environment and this is being increasingly recognisedacross the country.

In conclusion, I object to this application most strongly.

I object to the application for the following reasons.

1. The existing site, comprising house with garage and garden, is proportionate to other propertiesin the area. The land the subject of this application is currently fully utilised as a private residentialgarden in a built up area. It does not fall within the definition of brownfield or previously developedland.

2. The proposal is dependent upon the loss of the garage structure at the existing property, whichwill upset the rhythm and repetition of the road.

3. There is no reference to an application for Conservation Area consent for the demolition of thegarage at no.1 in order to create the access to the proposed development.

4. The design does not positively respond to the character of the area.

5. The proposed development will- cause harm to the setting and character of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area- harm the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers- increase the density of development in the area, which will be out of keeping with the existingadjoining houses and the houses in the area and lessen the historic pattern and open character ofthe area

6. The negative impact in respect of parking, traffic and highways safety is of considerableconcern. The proposed new property is a 4 bed with 7 bedspace. The existing property is also a 4

bed and presumably also has at least 7 bedspace.- Inadequate provision is made for parking for future tenants of both properties which will result inincreased parking of vehicles on the road which will in turn harm the amenity of surroundingresidential occupiers and give further cause for concern in respect of highway safety- The proposed shared drive will result in unacceptable highway safety because of the movementof cars from both properties over the one drive.- In addition to the need for vehicles to park on the road it is likely that vehicles from the existingproperty (assuming the creation of parking in the front garden), possibly also vehicles from theproposed property, will have no choice but to exit the driveway in reverse gear, with the potentialto create unacceptable encounters with other vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists accessing thedriveway and those using the road and pavement, particularly given the inevitable increase inparking on the road.

7. The likely future loss of the front boundary wall and garden to off street parking will underminethe character and appearance of the street scene.

8. The loss of any healthy trees, shrubs and green space will cause an adverse environmentalimpact.

The proposed new build at No 1 Druid Road will be situated at the end of our backgarden, within 100 metres of our house. My wife and I object for the following reasons.

NOTE - our principle objection is that, if allowed to proceed, paving the way for additional futurecopycat builds, a tandem row development will arise, out of character with the local conservationarea.

1. This is NOT a brown field site. The proposed new build is in the rear garden, of an existingproperty (No 1 Druid Rd) within the Synead park conservation area.

2. The proposed new build will sacrifice a large area of green space, which inter-connects withadjacent green garden spaces threatening wild-life habitats including those of badgers, and birdssuch as Jays & woodpeckers, all of which are visitors to our gardens.

3. Existing mature trees will be lost, and given the depth and extent of planned excavation,additional mature trees in neighbouring gardens are also at risk due to damage to root systems.

4. From the street view, alterations to the existing house will include demolition of the garage (tothe left), and either concreting of the front garden space to provide parking, or spill over streetparking (see 5).

5. The architect's plans only show parking / turning space for a single car. This to serve a four-bedroom, seven bed-space house. The tenants in the existing four-bedroom house at No 1 DruidRd already have two vehicles, one parked on the road. The average car ownership in Druid Road,

is between 2-3 cars per household.

6. Druid road is a cul-de-sac with significant current on street parking. Spill over parking at No 1 (if/ when it boasts two 4 bed households) within meters of the junction with the busy Stoke Hill road,will exacerbate street parking congestion.

7. If planning permission is granted, further future rear garden new builds will also logically begiven permission, with devastating effects in terms of additional street parking in this narrow road,further loss of green space and wildlife, tree felling, and loss of both wildlife and neighbourhoodcharacter.

8. The more that similar new builds are allowed within this cul-de-sac, within a conservation area,the more pressure there will be on existing basic services including refuse collection, sewage /surface water drainage, water provision / water pressure. Noise, and street traffic (deliveries,visitors, parking) will be additional problems.

9. Finally, I expect there would also be objections from No 1 Druid road itself if the owners actuallylived at the address, especially during garden demolition, house construction, and long-term, witha four bedroom house within their garden generating noise, traffic, etc which may well adverselyaffect future residents of this property more than any other neighbouring property ! The setupwould certainly be out of keeping with the area. Of interest, I am told the existing tenants aremoving out.

I object to the proposed application at 1 Druid Road as follows:

1. Brownfield site vs Garden: Throughout the application, the area is described as brownfield land.I do not believe this is brownfield land but rather a residential garden. Reference National PolicyFramework February 2019.2. Conservation Area: Druid Road is in the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and the ConservationArea Enhancement Statement references the detrimental impact that development of additionaldwellings within gardens can have on the character of the area.3. Building on a private garden. With reference to the City's Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies, my understanding is that development involving a loss of garden is notallowed unless it represents a more efficient use of land, I do not believe this is the case.4. Access. The only way to access the new building would be to demolish the existing garagehowever I do not believe the application makes reference to demolishing a building or structurewithin the Conservation Area and does not make allowance for any wildlife that may be residentwithin the fabric of that building.5. Parking Standards. I do not believe that the parking requirements for a 4 bedroom dwellinghave been fully taken into account. I am deeply concerned that in order to provide sufficientparking for two houses, the front garden of 1 Druid Road would have to be paved over withhardstanding. This has an additional negative impact on the wildlife of our region.6. Wildlife: There is an abundance of wildlife supported by Druid Road. Owls, ravens, peregrinefalcons, sparrow hawks and woodpeckers are regular visitors. Badgers, foxes, bats and even asmall deer have been spotted here. There are also slow worms, newts, frogs and toads. Bysupporting the slow erosion of our green space through the building of property in this area we arecomplicit in the destruction of our own important eco-systems and environment.

1. A four-bedroomed house is inappropriate for the garden of Number 1 Druid Road. Itwill take up too much of the garden and will be an unacceptable intrusion on all the neighbouringproperties, particularly Number 3 Druid Road.2. If the garage of Number 1 is demolished to make the access, the occupiers of Number 1 will nothave anywhere on their property to park their vehicles, and will have to park on the road.3. Parking on the road is already a problem in Druid Road, particularly at and near the entrance.The road is narrow and only admits vehicles to pass one in each direction. There are very oftennumerous car parked there and passing them is always dangerous because vehicles, very oftendelivery vans or lorries, come in the opposite direction from up and down Stoke Hill and swing intoDruid Road without realising how quickly the road narrows to two lanes. Forcing more cars to parkon the road will only increase the danger.4. There are few places to park in Druid Road which do not inconvenience the occupiers of otherproperties. The road is so narrow that vehicles can very easily obstruct the access and otheregress from other properties. We need less vehicles parked on the road, not more.5. As a pedestrian who walks Druid Road on average at least four times a day, I object to vehiclesparking on the pavement, meaning that I have to walk in the road. Forcing more cars to park in theroad will increase this problem.

Druid Road is in the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and the many of the houses areinfluenced by the Arts & Crafts' style. From its origins to today, landscape has been an importantelement in the character of the area, which provides the setting for the housing and creates a verymature arcadian suburb.Using Policy DM21: Development of Private Gardens as a reference point, this objection is basedon the following1. Higher densities of development are not appropriate at this location and would diminish theopen character of the Conservation Area. It would significantly affect the character and pattern ofdevelopment;2. The proposed development would not result in a significant improvement to the urban design ofthe area and it is out of keeping with the essential character of the area as well as not respectingthe traditional forms characteristic of the area;3. The proposed development is not an extension to an existing single dwelling.4. The development of this garden land would result in harm to the character and appearance ofthe area in that it will damage the historic pattern and character of building in the ConservationArea.In addition, and using Policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctiveness as an additionalreference point;1. The proposed development does not respond appropriately to the existing historic assets andfeatures;2. It neither respects, builds upon or restores the local pattern and grain of development, includingthe historical development of the area; and3. Does not reflect locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features andthemes of the existing developments.

This proposed development also does not comply with the requirements of Policy DM26 as itwould be harmful to local character and distinctiveness. In addition, this infill development doesnot have regard to the prevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape.

Having grown up in the immediate vicinity and with family who lived on road I havealways hoped to return to the area to raise my own children. The arrival of Corona Virus has putthis into sharper focus and so I am currently looking to return from London to Stoke Bishop, and assuch I have been keeping an eye on properties in the area for ones which are more affordable - tomy dismay I have found relatively few. Therefore I very much support the idea of building slightlymore affordable housing (especially in the current economic climate), as there are wonderfulamenities in the area for young families such as Elmlea Primary School, Cedar Park, Stoke BishopCofE Primary School, St Mary's Magdalene Church, Sea Mills Surgery and the Helios Clinic,which unlike many places, are not too overstretched. I am saddened to see from some of the othercomments that a very small minority of residents in their luxurious 5 bedroom homes wish to keepthis area as the preserve of the very few.

I recently submitted planning locally myself, and since doing so I have been reading upon other applications in the area to get a feel for how things work, and have begun to try andeducate myself on the housing requirements of Bristol.

From what I understand Bristol has committed itself to building 2,000 homes in the very nearfuture to address the growing housing challenges within the city, unfortunately it is expected theCovid 19 epidemic will have had a not unsubstantial impact on these efforts. As Bristol does itsbest to meet the housing needs of its people it seems sensible for individuals to chip in whereappropriate and help meet the demand, especially given the difficulties being faced as a result ofthe ongoing pandemic. To coin Tesco's catch phrase, 'every little helps'. In the words of MarvinRees, Mayor of Bristol "Building new houses and addressing the shortage of adequateaccommodation remains one of the key priorities for my administration... Every property we buildis important to the city, but we cannot do this alone, and we are working with a range of partnersand organisations to build homes across the city".

It should not be the sole responsibility of the city centre to provide the space to meet theincreasing demands for more housing for the people of Bristol. Many of these are areas wherespace is already at a premium but the residents there have a less powerful voice than those livingin grand homes in leafy suburbs.

While reading through a few of the comments my attention was caught by a couple of objectionsfrom other homes on the road, 11A and 2A in particular. Looking through their comments I noticethat their main concerns, plot size, orientation of the new property and parking, are similar to theirown houses' setups. 2A appears to have parking rather than a front garden, and a smaller plot

size than the proposed property at number 1, and 11A is situated behind 11 with a drive runningup the side, presumably with parking in front of the house (unless they park in the road, but giventhere are 6 driveways side by side I doubt any of them park on the road there, especially as it is byan island, so only 1 car width wide). If you look at the OS map with this application it is quite clearto see.

This application for a single family home, equipped with driveway, parking and gardens, with atotal estate footprint which is as large as others on the road, and significantly larger than homes onadjoining roads, to be built on a road which itself already has infills and in an area where there arenumerous infills on all adjoining streets, whilst also being situated at the mouth of a cul-de-sac andwhich could only be seen by 2 properties seems to me like it could form part of the solution toreaching the city's housing target.

I surely hope that my immediate neighbours, less than a mile away in Henleaze, take a morepragmatic approach than those in this larger, less populated but much more expensiveneighbourhood.

Although not a near neighbour of the proposed development, as a past Chairman of theSneyd Park Residents' Association (1994-2002) and a joint founder of the "Friends of Old SneydPark Nature Reserve" (1995) I feel that I must write to oppose this misguided planning application.

I wish to object to the proposed application on the following grounds:

1. Categorisation of the land.In the application, the rear garden is described as 'brownfield land" in numerous places. This isincorrect terminology - in various planning regulations, the latest of which is the 2019 NationalPlanning Policy Framework, it is explicitly stated that the definition of brownfield land excludes"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens". Thus the garden of 1 Druid Road cannot betermed as brownfield land.

2. Parking.The existing house, a 4-bedroom residence, has a garage and space in the drive for a further car,although I understand that a car is frequently parked on the road. The proposed developmentincludes the demolition of the garage (although not specifically applied for) and the provision ofjust one parking place for the proposed 4-bedroom house. Thus on this site, in place of one 4-beddwelling, there would be two houses with a total of 8 bedrooms yet with provision for only 2parking spaces. 4-bedroom houses in Stoke Bishop typically have at least 2, more often 3, carsper house so that there will be up to 6 cars at this location yet only 2 parking spaces. Where willthe remaining cars be parked? On the road at the entrance to a narrow cul-de-sac to the detrimentof all residents in the road, not to mention making access difficult for emergency and deliveryvehicles.

3. Development of private gardens.Bristol Council's own Policy DM21 specifically states that the policy is "to retain private residentialgardens in the city". The Design and Access Statement in the application says that 'the existinghouse has a very large garden'', yet it is no larger that in the majority of the other houses in DruidRoad, actually some houses in the road and in Stoke Hill have larger gardens. In fact the gardenof 1 Druid Road with a steep slope is probably the least suitable for a development even it it werenot in a conservation area. This application would reduce the rear garden of 1 Druid Road to onehalf of its current size while the proposed new house would have insignificant garden space,neither being appropriate for the character of the road. Furthermore, it would be an inevitableconsequence that when the existing house is sold - as it will be - new owners will immediatelyseek to concrete over the front garden for additional car parking space, leading to further loss ofgreen area.

4. Conservation Area.Sneyd Park has been a designated Conservation Area for over 30 years and this has played animportant role in maintaining the nature of the area as one with a special character and pattern ofdevelopment that must be preserved and/or enhanced by any permitted development. Thisapplication would seriously affect the character and built environment of the road, while theproposed house, which can only be described as a partly-buried bunker, would be utterlyinappropriate in any conservation area.

5 The Environment.From my involvement with the Old Sneyd Park Nature Reserve over many years I appreciate theimportance of the provision and maintenance of green areas to allow wildlife of all types to flourish.Stoke Bishop, and indeed the whole of Bristol, is particularly favoured to have this nature reservewhich is supported by the full range of gardens throughout the area. Any loss of garden space is ablow against the environment and this is being increasingly recognised across the country.

Dear Development Management team

I am writing to express my concern for the planning application relating to 1 Druid Road in Stoke Bishop Bristol BS9 1LJ

I am raising the following points as objections to the application for the new build of a 4 bedroom property in the back garden of the existing property.

1. I do not believe that the definition of brownfield or previously developed land referring to the garden of 1 Druid Road in Stoke Bishop Bristol BS9 1LJ is correct. The definition was changed in the NPPF 2012 and all residential gardens are now characterised as greenfield or NOT previously developed land.

The the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not automatically applied.

2. Parking is already an issue in this area and I believe according to the Highways Safety the following issues apply:

a. The proposals for a shared driveway would create a conflict of vehicle movements resulting in unacceptable highway safety.

b. Vehicles from the existing dwelling, no1, are likely to have to exit the driveway in reverse which could create an unacceptable conflict with vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists attempting to access the proposed dwelling to the rear.

c. The proposed access road has a number of young families and older residents whose safety is being put at a higher level of risk due to the increased levels of parking reducing pedestrian visibility when crossing the road

3. Parking Standards

a. The proposal includes 1 off-street parking space

b. The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies July 2014 Parking Standards requires 1.5 parking spaces for a residential dwelling of this size

c. The proposal fails to meet the required standard and will result in residents parking cars on Druid Road which is a narrow street de-marked with driveways all along. This will further contribute to issues of highway safety.

4. Design

a. The application fails to provide sufficient information related to the design and finish of the proposed dwelling or its rationale.

b. The application does not include a palette of materials or information related to how these have been selected and how they preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.

c. Whilst sustainability and sustainable materials are an important consideration in determining planning applications, that must be balanced against other material considerations including whether harm will be caused to the conservation area. Because of this I believe the overall impact of the proposals will cause significant damage to the character of the conservation area by considerably altering the built form and setting of this part of Stoke Bishop.

5. Noise

a. Looking at the design access and heritage statement it shows plan to install an air source heat heating pump with clear warnings about noise creation from the motors humming and vibrating motor.

b. research has shown that an instance of noise pollution could be detected at 14m away from the pump (housed outside).

Please refer to https://www.imheatpumps.co.uk/blog/are-heat-pumps-noisy/

6. Residential Amenity

a. Residential amenity must be considered in the context of both the existing residents and possible future residents should planning permission be granted.

b. In terms of existing residents, the proposal is at odds with the setting and character of the area and would create a dangerous precent for future development that would fundamentally harm the character of this important conservation area.

c. The proposed dwelling would have no active frontage or public realm. This is at odds with the character of the area. This is further exacerbated by the amount of screening that is required to create any separation between dwellings. This would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of future residents.

7. Finally I believe there has been a procedural error related to not applying for Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the existing garage at 1 Druid Road in Stoke Bishop Bristol BS9 1LJ to create the new access. That is a legal requirement.

Thank you for taking these comments in to consideration

Yours faithfully

Luke

1. Druid Road is a unique and prestigious road in Stoke Bishop, being a cul de sac andcomprising 31 quality detached houses, all but two of which were built in the 1930s to slightlydifferent designs and with different features. Each house has a pitched roof and was built with itsown integral or connected garage and all have good sized, proportional, secluded and mature reargardens. There is parking available for two or three vehicles in the driveway of each house and allhouses are built along the same building line.2. The house which is the subject of this planning application could not be more different from theestablished 1930s houses in the road, being of a modern design, with a flat roof and intended tobe built in the back garden of an existing house. If permission were to be granted, there would betwo houses in the road which would be out of line with other houses in the road: no.1, which wouldhave no garage and no drive, thus making parking on the road inevitable, and, in addition, barelyany back garden; no.1A, the new house, would also have no garage, it would not fit in stylisticallyor otherwise with other houses in the road, and would itself have hardly any garden. Ownership inthe household of more than one car (almost inevitable given that the apparent aim is to provide 7bedspaces) would make it highly likely that second or third cars would also have to be parked onthe road, causing increased congestion at the busiest end of Druid Road. This is a particularproblem during the day, when many contractors, working on houses in the road, park theirvehicles along the road, making it difficult on occasions to get from one end of the road to theother, and during daytime and in the evenings, when those using the Village Hall park in numbersat the Stoke Hill end of Druid Road, thus obstructing visibility at the junction as well. The additionof three or four more vehicles would exacerbate the situation, as well as creating additionaldifficulties for access by emergency vehicles.3. To the best of my knowledge, all 1930s houses in the road are subject to a restrictive covenant,preventing the owners from building any structure in their gardens, apart from "a motorhouse

greenhouse or conservatory." This covenant was imposed "for the benefit of neighbours in theroad. Assuming that no.1 Druid Road is subject to the same covenant, erection of the buildingproposed would be in breach of this covenant.4. Druid Road is within the Sneyd Park Conservation Area, meaning that there is no presumptionin favour of sustainable development, and thus acknowledging that it is an area of specialarchitectural or historic interest and that the objective of planning policies relating to propertieswithin its ambit is to conserve and enhance all aspects of its character or appearance. To grantpermission for this development, which is totally out of character with all the other houses in theroad, would be contrary to the general principles of sustainability and enhancement underlying thestatus of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, it is claimed in the application that the site is abrownfield site. It quite clearly is not, as it forms the rear garden of an existing house.5. Developing this site in the way proposed would set a dangerous precedent for other propertiesin the road and would lead to a diminution in the character and appearance of the road, which upto now, and unlike other roads in the vicinity, has been mercifully free of unsuitable infills.6. The application proposes the removal of a substantial number of trees, both evergreen anddeciduous, which would significantly adversely affect the biodiversity of the area, and the buildingof this property and removal of so much greenery would have an adverse effect on the manyanimals and birds that we are used to seeing regularly in our gardens, including foxes, badgers,deer, squirrels, green woodpeckers etc. The effect of light pollution from the large glass rooflight atnight, as well as adversely affecting a number of adjoining properties, will have a harmful andpossibly disorientating effect on wildlife.My wife and I object to this application for the reasons set out above.

I am generally in favour of residential development in our city but I regret that I cannotsupport this application. Adding just one dwelling that has so many objections and disadvantagesto it would be a wrong decision.

I wish to object to the proposed application on seven specific grounds:

1. Category of land. The garden is described as brownfield land in several places in theapplication. Brownfield land is land that has been built on in the past i.e. what is described inNPPF 2019 as previously-developed land. But there are no vacant or former buildings on this land.The website https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/what-is-a-brownfield-site specifically saysunder "What Doesn't Count as a Brownfield Site" that "many ... plot sites are not classified asbrownfield, including garden plots...."If you refer to the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2 Glossary p70, you will seeunder the definition of previously-developed land that this specifically excludes "land in built-upareas such as residential gardens". The garden of 1 Druid Road is an ordinary garden. It is notbrownfield land. Any presumption in favour of development of so-called brownfield land does notapply.

2. Local policy on development of private gardens. Bristol's Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies Local Plan 2014 is relevant. Policy DM21 Development of Private Gardenssays: "2.21.1 This policy aims to retain private residential gardens in the city ...". It goes on to saythat development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless the proposal wouldrepresent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densities are appropriate, thedevelopment would result in a significant improvement to urban design, or the proposal is an

extension to an existing single dwelling and would retain an adequate area of functional garden. Inall cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character andappearance of an area.The Design and Access Statement p.24 claims that "the existing house has a very large gardens"(sic). In fact the gardens of the adjacent and opposite houses in Druid Road are of similar area.There is nothing that marks out the garden of 1 Druid Road as being any different to nearbygardens.Higher densities are not appropriate for this road where - without exception - the existing housesare all of a standard 1920s/1930s design. This development would certainly not result in a"significant improvement to the urban design" of the area. Nor does it leave either house with "anadequate area of functional garden". The front garden of the existing house, 1 Druid Road, wouldall be taken over for off-street car parking (see point 5 below) while the remaining garden areaallocated to the proposed new house would be very small as can be seen on the site plan.DM21 also says that development involving front gardens should ensure that the character of thestreet is not harmed and that appropriate boundary treatments and planting are retained. The frontgarden of the existing house No 1 Druid Road would be lost to car parking, so harming thecharacter of the road.

3. Conservation Area. Druid Road is in the Sneyd Park Conservation Area. The Conservation AreaEnhancement Statement for this area refers to the historic pattern of development and characterof the area, defined as a residential suburb, and in this part of the Conservation Area as a "gardenvillage characterised by 1920/30s housing with formal frontages and large rear gardens". TheConservation Area Enhancement Statement specifically mentions the detrimental impact thatdevelopment of additional dwellings within gardens can have on the character of the area. It isimportant to retain the historic pattern and open character of the Conservation Area. Thisapplication would significantly alter that historic character and the built form of Druid Road and itssurrounds. It would be out of keeping with the Conservation Area as a whole and cause significantharm to the character and setting of the Conservation Area. Harm to the Conservation Area is amaterial consideration that must be given significant weight when determining any planningapplication. This harm fundamentally outweighs any benefit that the proposed development couldoffer.Conservation Areas are specifically recognised as important areas with a special character andpattern of development that must be preserved and/or enhanced through any new development.The house proposed here is completely different to all other houses nearby and as such it wouldnot preserve nor enhance the style and character of the Conservation Area.

4. Access. To create the only possible access route to the proposed dwelling the existing garageof 1 Druid Road would have to be demolished. The application omits any reference to demolishinga building or structure within the Conservation Area, as required under planning policy. This is afatal flaw in the application. If this application is granted consent then its implementation would beunlawful as a breach of planning control (para 58 NPPF).

5. Parking Standards. Bristol's Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan2014 Appendix 2 is relevant. The proposal includes one off-street parking space. However thestandard is 1.5 parking spaces for a residential dwelling of this size (4 bedrooms, 7 bedspaces).This failure to provide even the minimum amount of off-street parking is certain to result in furthercar parking on Druid Road which is narrow and residential. The application also fails toacknowledge that the only way to provide adequate off-street car parking for the existing house, 1Druid Road, requires the front garden to be paved over with hardstanding.

6. Amenity. The proposed dwelling would have no active frontage or public realm for futureresidents. This is at odds with the character of the area. This is further exacerbated by the amountof screening that is required to create any separation between dwellings. This would have adetrimental impact on the amenity of future residents.

7. Design. The application says little about the design and finish of the proposed dwelling. As faras can be gleaned from the application, the proposed house would be an ugly square blocklooking like a half-buried wartime bunker, having blank or almost blank walls, without any visiblewindows on three sides, and covered by a flat roof supporting an incongruous largeglasshouse/skylight. There is no building that looks anything like this in the vicinity. It would bewholly out of keeping with the local area.

On the basis of the points stated above I request that officers refuse this planning application,which would needlessly spoil the area for little benefit and might make a precedent for furtherdamaging proposals.

With reference to the planning application No. 20/04334/F to build a house in thegarden of number 1 Druid Road I lodge my objection based on the fact that if granted it wouldintrude on the SNEYD Park conservation area which we rely on our planners to protect.

If the application were to be successful it may possibly enable other residents or their successorsto obtain permission to also build in their back gardens.

Another concern is that the plan I have seen does not show sufficient off-street parking toaccommodate 2 cards at the new build or at the existing No.1 house. Druid Road is too narrow foron street parking with any safety. All existing residents have adequate off-road space.

There is no indication on the plan of the possibility of flooding. Once the soil and rock has beenremoved, there may also be damage to the roots of trees in surrounding gardens which may dieas a result of being deprived of sufficient moisture or harmed through the excavation.

Having lived at this address for over 60 years it would be a tragedy to diminish the attraction ofliving in this green oasis.I hope these objections will assist you in coming to the right decision.

Yours faithfully,

Michael J. Pople

The Country neeeds a diverse portfolio of property types whilst being sympathetic totheir environs. The locality is cahracterised by large houses in sizeable plots with a considerabledegree of modern infilling that is mindful of near neighbours.

The realities of modern UK life are that there is a housing shortage that needs to be addressed.Government policy is to support housing appplication (NPPF) unless the tilted balance suggestsotherwise.

The proposed building is of modern design and so it is unlike some of the neighbouring propertie,but not unusual in the city context or this area of BS9.

The proposed building is sunken into the ground thereby significantlyreducing its visual impact.The propoety is i consider to be a low impact, environmentally friendly proposal, and one that iswell designed and does not contrary to other comments to be over bearing or to overlook.

I do not believe that there are any legitimate planning issues that would lead one to opposetheapplication. While there is limited parking in the street the new drive and parking area fully tothe Council's parking standards mean that it would not increase the amount of on-street parking.

The occupants of 1 Druid Road have tended to park on the street rather than in the drive becauseof the wall on the right of thedrive that makes it hard to open a car door; if anything therefore anew drive may well have the net effect of decreasing on-street parking rather than increasing it.

I think that local residents that have raised rather minor concerns need to not be over protective

about preserving the status quo for no good planning reason. More houses are needed and thisone has no (or minimal) adverse impacts;the application should therefore be approved.

The proposal in the context of local and national policy is compliant and I therefore respectfullysuggest should be approved without further delay under deleagted powers. Any minor point canbe adddressed through the application of appropriate conditions.

2

2) The plot is in shade. Plans showing position of trees do not show significant neighbouring trees - two 24 m high oak trees in the garden of 39 Stoke Hill and a 24 m high conifer tree which is on the border of 1 Druid Road which is in the garden of 37 Stoke Hill. See above right, these trees are off-site, and they are unlikely to be removed by the neighbouring owners - nor have permission to do so in a Conservation area. The trees make the back of the garden of 1 Druid Road very dark as they are directly South East of this area. The very rear of the garden in this proposal is in constant shade, and all the remaining proposed plot in shade most of the day and most of the year. I fear it is highly likely that any occupants will access the roof to use as an amenity area. This would mean overlooking directly into nine neighbouring gardens and into our bedrooms, lounge, and kitchen dining area as well, from a 4-5m high vantage point. As there is to be a flat roof there is nothing to stop this from happening. 3) Light pollution Since the plot is in consistent shade, the proposed roof lantern would provide little natural light into the house, which would require continual artificial lighting. The 3 m² glazed lantern is likely to be emitting artificial light through the day and night due to the poor light levels in the subterranean building in a shaded wooded area. In the evening there will be excessive light pollution as there will be no effective screening and it will cause light pollution into our house and neighbouring houses, particularly into our and neighbours’ bedrooms. This will also have an adverse effect on wildlife. This level of light pollution harming our amenity. 4) Poor Design and below minimum housing space standards Bedroom 1 Double 3.7 X 2.5 =9.25 m² The minimum size for a double bedroom is 11.5 m² Bedroom 2 Double 5.6 X 2 .5 =14 m² The minimum width for the main double bedroom is 2.75 Bedroom 4 Double 4.3 X 2.5=10.7 m² The minimum size for a double bedroom is 11.5 m² From Department of communities and local Government: Technical housing standards Space Standards 2015. Policy BCS18 states developments shall meet… appropriate space standards, which it does not. The ventilation proposed for three bedrooms are hinged doors this is not appropriate for bedrooms when a small amount of ventilation is required in autumn/winter. 5) Potential commercial Use As this is a building with three small bedrooms below ground which look out onto a wall; with a tiny, overshadowed garden area it is unlikely to be able to be sold as an owner-occupied premises or for long-term rental (over 6 months). I would be concerned that this would be an Airbnb letting for commercial purposes. It would not therefore provide any extra accommodation for a family. 6) Parking and access Potential bed space for seven people would easily attract 3 to 4 vehicles, however parking is only provided for one vehicle and does not provide any parking for 1 Druid Road. The site allocations and Development Management Policies July 2014, Parking standards require 1.5 parking spaces for a residential dwelling this size. There is 1 space for 2 houses. A concern is the established Fig tree would be removed to concrete over the front garden of 1 Druid Road causing further loss of amenity. The proposal fails to meet the minimum standard and cause extra parking on Druid Road which is narrow with many drives which results in difficulty in cars accessing and leaving dwellings. This could cause unacceptable traffic conditions. There is currently no drive to the rear of

3

37, 39 and 41 Stoke Hill. Traffic movements, noise and the visual amenity would be harmed by engines, headlights and vehicle movements cm from our back gardens. A concern is fast driving causing extra noise due to the long 50m driveway. The new drive would provide easy access to the rear of houses 37,39 and 41 Stoke Hill with potential for increased crime due to the secluded nature of the drive. DM26 states access should not cause adverse impacts to character safety or amenity which it will do. 7) Courtyard retaining wall This is shown at a height of 50 cm. This is a danger to any adult or any child who could easily fall over such a low retaining wall. The guard should be increased to 110 cm high. (Building Regs) This would make underground bedrooms unhealthily dark. 8) Health and safety on driveway/Bike store provision The driveway to the proposed new build goes immediately past the kitchen door of 1 Druid Road which opens on to the drive. The current plans omit this. This is a safety concern for any occupiers of 1 Druid Road who would want to use their kitchen door. 1 Druid Road is a family home occupied often with young children who constantly use the back door. There is no safe pedestrian access and egress to the kitchen door from the garden which also acts as a means of escape in case of fire. This will cause totally unacceptable traffic conditions. There is no way of safely separating pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The drive from the proposed development gives views into the rear of 1 Druid road, house, and garden due to termination of hedging. There is no safety barrier between the garden area and driveway probably because this could make the back-door area more dangerous for people using the garden. There is no adequate resolution to this issue and is against the terms of DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the SADMP Many tenants of 1 Druid Road use the garage (to be demolished) as a bike store, there would need to be spaces for four bikes and further bike stores for any residents of the new build i.e. potentially another four. Eight bike spaces needed in total, however only two are provided in the plans for the proposed dwelling. None for 1 Druid Road. Not meeting policy BCS 13. 9) Flooding 1 Druid Road is at high risk from surface water flooding or flash flooding. Likely due to the steep slopping of the area (Stoke Hill) The application incorrectly states that the area is not in an area with an increased risk of flooding and no assessment of risk has been provided. The provision of additional hardstanding areas is likely to increase risk of flooding downhill of the proposed dwelling. A basement level is not resilient to flooding.

4

10) Drainage As the premises has one floor level below ground there is an inadequate gradient to provide an adequate flow velocity for rainwater and sewage. This could lead to sewerage pipes being blocked and cause nuisance of sewerage overflowing this would be a public health nuisance harming the health and amenity of residents. I am concerned that any pumping for sewage and rainwater would cause noise nuisance. 11) Waste disposal A fear is that occupants do not use a rubbish store 30 m away then carry waste a further 24m to the kerbside as is proposed. A total of 54m with bags of waste is not practicable. This is a downside of not having a frontage as is normal in this area. I fear that rubbish could be left in the garden which would affect the amenity of the neighbours and attract rats and other pests causing a public health nuisance and not in concordance with DM32( Recycling refuse and provision in new development) 12) Sustainability There is little in terms of sustainability with this project, rainwater could be used for toilets but it’s not. An air source heat pump is used which potentially could cause a noise nuisance to us as it’s likely to be 3 metres from our garden; it runs on electricity so hardly a green power supply.

13) Trees and Green infrastructure More than half the rear garden which currently has 14 trees on site and two large lawned areas would be given over to concrete or other building materials this would have a massive negative impact for all the wildlife that currently use the area and the visual and acoustic amenity. 9 trees are to be removed, two thirds of the total causing further harm to visual and acoustic amenity in the conservation area, reducing the verdant green setting substantially (missed of an small Oak tree)T1, T2 and T10 could have root damage, including the healthy Ash tree (no die back evident) at no 3 Druid Road. The T8 a Magnolia is an asset but is to be removed, wonderful healthy mature established trees are described as fair which seems unfair and inaccurate. Provision of a hedge is no substitute and is not in line with Section 11 of the NPPF. Deer, badgers and foxes have been observed in the back gardens of Stoke Hill. The 2m deep basement has no access or egress which could be death trap for wildlife. There is no suggestion to plant any replacement trees. The application incorrectly states this is a Brownfield, Brownfield refers to developed land whereas this is an undeveloped residential garden which has had no previous buildings on it. BCS5 advocates new houses to be built on previously developed sites across the city not in Conservation area gardens. A green roof is proposed, I understand these need regular maintenance, occasional watering, and weeding, without which it easily becomes an eyesore. I would fear it would become an eyesore within quite a short space of time due to the current level of maintenance of the garden. This would harm the amenity of all neighbours. There is no provision on the site for any storage of any garden equipment or maintenance materials such as ladders for accessing the green roof, hedge trimmers, mowing equipment et cetera. 14) Loss of daylight The equinox shadowing in the plans appear incorrect showing a 4-5 m high solid structure would not cause shadowing at 3 m South West from my Boundary, and no shadowing into the underground basement area that faces North West. This plan also shows a different location of the development compared with other plans. Sun light into our garden would be blocked out and cause a loss of amenity and harm our quiet enjoyment of our family home.

5

15) Noise nuisances The premises appear unsuitable for children, having a tiny paved garden area. Traffic for 7 adults with multiple vehicles would cause noise in back gardens of 37,39 and 41 Stoke Hill and 1 and 3 Druid Road. We live on a remarkably busy road and rely on our back gardens as the place to go for peace and quiet and where I need to use my work phone due to poor reception, this peace would be harmed by this development. Air source heat pump can cause nuisance with noise levels of between 40 to 60 DBA with noise of the vibration buzzing and the hum of a motor this has been observed at 14 m distance. I am concerned that any pumping for sewage and rainwater would cause noise nuisance. The pleasant sound of bird song would be gone replaced by vehicle and pump sounds. This harms our amenity. 16) Construction As the proposal is for underground construction the excavation and potential pilling is likely to cause substantial and grossly excessive noise nuisance. This would be far greater than standard build noise. As we are in Covid times many are working from home or are at home, this would have a massive detrimental impact particularly as libraries and workplaces are inaccessible as a place of work or refuge from noise. 17) Odour and Flies As we keep chickens less than 2m from the boundary it is likely at times there will be odours and flies from chicken manure particularly early summer, despite weekly cleaning it is a consequence of chickens. 18) Plot size 100 m² is the minimum suggested size for a garden for a 4 bed house. The actual usable garden area is only 40 m² is very restrictive, poor quality being narrow, paved and dark. At only 3m from our boundary it will look very cramped and shoehorned in and will overshadow our garden and cut our much needed light in a dark area. All surrounding gardens are large so the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character and development pattern. It also provides insufficient privacy to any occupants being so close to all neighbours with a tiny garden. It overlooks directly into our garden, living room and kitchen dining seating area. The historic pattern and character of the conservation area would be harmed. 19) Conservation area The application suggests that it is a sustainable building, however there are in fact few features that make it sustainable and it would involve the demolition of a garage that does fit with the architecture, 9 trees and a lawn - I note a small oak tree has been omitted from the Arboriculture impact assessment. The building is generally of poor amenity in terms of design and lack of bedroom space, it’s in a dark garden with habitable rooms being underground There is very little amenity space being a tiny courtyard in a very dark garden area. I fear that due to lack of space in bedrooms, space outside, light, natural ventilation and poor amenity it would eventually would cause ill health in any long term resident particularly now when people are having to stay at home due to Coronavirus. The design and massing of the structure with its uphill location overshadows 1 Druid Road and all other houses in the vicinity. It does not have quality in its design or visual interest from our view and is a substantial visual intrusion, this is not in accordance with DM29, it does not have easy maintenance with a green roof and hedging all around the border. It will not add to the quality of life of its users and could potentially cause depression and illness in dark underground, undersized, unventilated rooms in the shadows of 24m high conifer and other trees.

6

The design is not complimentary to any buildings in the vicinity using timber cladding and concrete nor does it have any modern design features that make it attractive. It is not appropriate in a conservation area where it would seriously harm the amenity of the other residents. Stoke Hill has many Grade 2 and 2* listed buildings, just meters from here, and the proposed build sets a dangerous precedent opening the flood gates for garden grabbing and overdevelopment. The development has not been designed to avoid overlooking into our home and garden and does not achieve an appropriate level of privacy, outlook or daylight in our home and garden, this is not in accordance with Policy DM29. It appears lacking in achieving the desired outcomes of many policies and the Conservation area with potentially very harmful impacts of this area. I fully object to the proposed development and respectfully ask that this application is rejected in full.

The realities of modern UK life are that we have an acute housing shortage that needsto be redressed. In doing so we can either intensify use of land already allocated for housing (e.g.in existing urban environments such as this proposal) or use otherwise undeveloped land. Mypreference is for the former.

I note the proposed building is of modern design and so it is unlike many of the neighbouringproperties. I also note that the proposed building is sunken into the ground thereby significantlyreducing its visual impact. It seems to me you can't have one without the other.

None of us really want our existing properties encroached upon. However, given the nationalneeds, I believe a low impact, environmentally friendly proposal, one that is well designed to avoidoverlooking, should be a welcome addition to the housing stock.

I wish to object to the proposed rear garden development of 1 Druid Road for thefollowing reasons.1. The computer-generated representation of the rear garden of 1 Druid Road, as it is today, iscompletely unrepresentative of the canopy cover provided by the existing trees and shrubs.Therefore, the actual loss will be far greater than anticipated from these drawings. A quick look atGoogle Earth will make this fully apparent.2. The proposal involves felling 8 trees and shrubs. Many of these are magnificent and have manymore years to live. 'As trees grow older, they grow faster. In these days of global warming whereexcessive carbon in the atmosphere is a big issue, what better way than to leave big trees and letthem do what they have evolved to do over millions of years. Property developers say they mightneed to remove a tree and say that's OK, we will replant. The reality is that they won't be as goodas the old trees at carbon capture for many years.' Prince William: A Planet for Us....These plans have no provision for replanting any trees.3. Foliar screening provides poor habitat diversity and is often unattractive if evergreen.4. Green roofs provide camouflage +/- insulation and water catchment but do not provide thediverse habitat of traditional green spaces.5. Recycling provision. Today all households in Druid Road need at least 5 recycling bins: Blackwheely bin, Black box, Green Box, Blue cardboard bag and Food Caddy. Many use the additionalgreen wheelie bin for garden waste. The proposed provision to store the recycling for bothdwellings at 1 Druid Road is not only completely insufficient for now but has no future proofing inits design.6. To have parking for only 1 car for both dwellings will have two likely outcomes.- Continual roadside parking of 1+ car- The present house will convert their attractive front garden with lawn, flower beds and a mature

fig tree into paved hard standing for cars.

Comment Reasons

Druid Road is within the Sneyd Park Conservation Area in the part described as ‘a

garden village characterised by 1920/30s housing with formal frontages and large

rear gardens’. Only two new houses have been built in Druid Road since the 1930s,

No 1 in the 1950s and 2a in 1980s. Both are sympathetic to the scaling and style of

the earlier houses. They retain the historic pattern and open nature of the

Conservation Area. All houses have active street frontages, are set back the same

2a

Figure 1: Aerial photo of Druid Rd from Know Your Place showing how how 1 and 2a are sympathetic to the original layout of the street.

2

amount from the street and have large gardens behind the house. They are all

comfortable family homes. The proposed new house has no active street frontage.

The current application to build a second house within the garden of an existing

one will cause harm to the character and setting of the Sneyd Park Conservation

Area and spoil the general character of the street.

The Location Plan submitted with the Application is not up to date. Insert below

from Land Registry (Aug 1988) shows 2a Druid Road is in fact made up of 2

separate portions gardens of 2 Druid Road and 51 Stoke Hill.

It is wrong to say that the proposed build on the back garden is on a brownfield

site. All residential gardens are now categorised as ‘greenfield land’ (NPPF 2012).

Access to the proposed new house is to be gained by knocking down the existing

garage and building a drive right up the side of the garden to the back where there

is parking for one car in front of the proposed build. Allowing only space for one

car in a house with space for 7people seems unrealistic. My concern is about

where a second car and the cars of the existing house (4 bedroom) will park:

-Parking on the shared drive is impractical as that would block access to the

house at the back.

-There is only sufficient space for one car to park in the road in front of No 1.

-Druid Road is narrow and not suitable for residents parking.

This means that the front lawn of the existing house at No 1 will have to become a

paved car park. In addition at wide section of the front wall on the street frontage

will be removed to provide access. This change to the front garden and wall will

Land Registry record shows how 2a

Druid Road combines back garden of

51 Stoke Hill with section of 2 Druid

Road thus creating a property where

house footprint is only 17% of land

and has active street frontage.

3

damage the pleasant Arcadian feel of Druid Road. Neighbouring front gardens have

boundary walls and trees and shrubs which screen the cars parked on drives from

the road and provide havens for wildlife.

With the garage demolished, neither the existing house nor the proposed one

would have any secure weatherproof storage available for garden tools, mowers,

bicycles and other sporting equipment. The two bike stands at the end of the

single car parking in the proposal are too few and not weather proof (Contrary to

DM23).

The space between the existing house and the boundary fence on the east side is

narrow (approx 3m) and the back door of the existing house opens directly into

this space. The access road to the new build would continue up alongside what

will remain of the garden of the existing house. There is no indication on the plans

that any of the access road would be fenced off. The proximity of the access road

to the back door and the lack of separation from the garden raise road safety

issues for people, young and old, and animals.

No 1 Druid Road is a pleasant 4 bedroom home with an appropriate large back

garden like the rest of Druid Road. The proposal will spoil the existing house

permanently by:

1 Removing the garage, a useful secure store, and thereby forcing the front

garden to be to become a car park.

2 Reducing the back garden by at least half.

3 Destroying the quiet and privacy and safety of the back garden due to the cars/

bikes /pedestrians using the access road to the proposed house.

4 Replacing the existing verdant views south from the back of the house and

garden house with a large wooden block. The green roof will be too high above eye

level to be seen from the second floor of No1 and other houses on the south side

of Druid Road. The wooden cladding of the walls is unlike anything in the area.

The proposal will also spoil the amenity of their own gardens for the seven

adjoining neighbours. As the new build is on higher ground, it will still be an

obvious block and blot to their current view of trees, despite being half

underground. Although some trees are indicated to remain, it is likely that the

extensive removal of ground will damage their roots and affect their longevity.

This danger of damage also includes trees in neighbours’ gardens.

4

The neighbours will suffer from loss of privacy and houses on Stoke Hill will have

the disturbance of cars and pedestrians coming up the access road right beside

their back fences.

This proposal will also have an adverse effect on the wild life and biodiversity of

the green space in the back garden and wider area no matter how innovative it’s

‘green’ construction.

In conclusion, in view of the above, I ask you to reject this unsuitable application.

I have been a neighbour of 1 Druid Road for 30 years and lived in the street as a child. I wish tosupport its planning application.

Firstly, there should now be a presumption that approval will be granted unless there are verycompelling reasons to the contrary. As the Mayor said, "Building new houses and addressing theshortage of adequate accommodation remains one of the key priorities for my administration". Theproposed house will be more affordable than most in the area, and has plainly been designed tominimise environmental and other impacts.

Its sunk design and grassed roof mean that I will not be able to see it, and only one house in thearea will have a view of it at all - and even that will be screened by new trees. This is far more thancan be said for the other infills that already exist in the area, such as 2A and 11A Druid Road,which also have smaller gardens. In fact there seem to be more trees proposed to be planted thanremoved, so I cannot see any damage to the ambience of Stoke Bishop as a leafy suburb. And itis not unique in the road to have a back garden infill - that is what 11A is after all, and its house isfar closer to others than the proposed one will be.

I do not believe that there are any legitimate planning issues that would lead one to oppose theapplication. While there is limited parking in the street the new drive and parking area mean that itwould not increase the amount of on-street parking. As I know well, the occupants of 1 Druid Roadhave tended to park on the street rather than in the drive because of the wall on the right of thedrive that makes it hard to open a car door; if anything therefore a new drive may well have the neteffect of decreasing on-street parking.

I think that local residents have to be careful not to be protective about preserving the status quofor no good reason. More houses are needed and this one has no (or minimal) adverse impacts;the application should therefore be approved.

I have at various times stayed at 1 Druid Road and know the property well. I wasdisappointed to read the adverse comments of some near (and not-so-near) neighbours, in whathas all the hallmarks of a concerted campaign of nimbyism by people who wish to preserve theprivileged sanctity of their elite island of calm.

The irony here is that nothing in this application negatively impacts the ambience of the area.Existing infills are less attractive, less environmentally friendly, and closer to pre-existing housesthan this one. There is no overlook except from one house, which will only see a new screen oftrees.

There is no evidence to support the supposition that there will be a negative impact on wildlife - Iam only too aware that the only animals other than birds that cross the garden are urban foxesand the occasional squirrel, all of which will be well able to continue their raids on rubbish and birdfeeders.

The main issue for neighbours appears to be parking. The drive at 1 Druid Road has historicallyseldom been used for parking cars as the wall on one side of it makes it difficult to open car doors.They have usually therefore been parked on the street outside the house. Parking for the newhouse is already provided off-road, and whether or not the main house at 1 Druid Road turns itsfront lawn into a drive (as most of the other houses have done) there will be no extra cars parkingon the street. If it does so there will actually be fewer parked cars on the road.

At a time when both local and national governments are calling for more homes to be built thereseems to be no reason - other than the prejudices of some entitled residents - not to approve this

application, which I therefore support.

As an environmentalist and cyclist I take a keen interest in a number of environmentalconcerns in the Bristol area, travel, housing and conservation to name a few.

Bristol City Council has recognised the importance of building environmentally friendly homes, andit should be celebrated that just last year the City Council won awards for sustainable housingdevelopments in St George - however there is still much to do in terms of creating sustainableliving accommodation across the city .There are always new houses being built throughout ourcity, however in too many cases they are being built by large corporations with not enough interestor focus on sustainable living, it is therefore reassuring to see that individuals in Bristol are takingup the baton themselves to try and improve the home building landscape. Within a radius of 0.1 ofa mile of the proposed site the area is wonderfully varied in terms of architecture, ranging fromStride homes, to elegant old limestone piles, to 1950s semi d's, to blocks of flats, and new buildterraced houses, another strand to the area's architectural bow in the form of an environmentallyfriendly home will enrich the diverse architectural fabric of the locality.

From a conservationist perspective I am pleased to see that consideration has been given to theeffect building on the space will have on trees. I note that more trees will be planted than removed,thus creating a net increase in the number of trees in the area. As is well documented the plantingof new trees is vitally important to the environment, because young trees are better atsequestering carbon from the atmosphere than older trees - as they are able to extract 25% morecarbon from the air and incorporate it into their biomass faster than mature trees. More trees beingplanted will be especially beneficial to the immediate area as I note a number of houses in closeproximity to this site have turned over much of their garden to tennis court, unfortunately tenniscourts offer nothing to wildlife in the area.

I wish to register my objection to the Application, for the following reasons

The application site is described by the Applicant as brownfield land. This is incorrect. NPPF12specifically excludes residential gardens in the built-up area from the definition of brownfield orpreviously developed land. This exemption was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal ina case concerning Dartford Borough Council( 2017).

Policy DM21 states that the development of private gardens will not be permitted unless:1) The proposal would represent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densitiesare appropriate2) The development would result in a significant improvement to the urban design of an area3) The development is an extension to an existing single dwelling.In all cases any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character andappearance of an area.

Conservation AreaThe application site is within The Sneyd Park Conservation Area, described in the Local Plan as 'averdant area' and as 'a very mature Arcadian suburb' characterised in this area by substantialhouses of the Arts and Craft style (mostly built in the 1920/30s) and large gardens whichcontribute to the green and open landscape.Higher densities are inappropriate and would harmthe Conservation Area.The proposed design is totally out of keeping with the character and design of Druid Road andwould provide no improvement to the area.

The proposed development is not an extension to an existing house.For these reasons the application does not meet the conditions of policy DM21 and would causesignificant harm to the existing Conservation Area.

Parking and trafficIt seems incongruous that the application gives no consideration to the existing house at No 1.Only passing reference is made to the proposed demolition of the garage, which itself wouldrequire a separate application.No reference is given to the existing side door of No.1 which would open directly onto the newdriveway and present a hazard to anyone exiting from that door as well as to vehicles using thedrive.No provision is made for parking at No.1 so effectively there would be only one parking space fortwo households. The occupants of the existing house would inevitably be forced to park on theroad.Street parking in Druid Road is already an issue of concern. The carriageway is relatively narrowso that cars, delivery vans, maintenance/construction lorries etc are often parked over part of thepavement which presents a hazard for pedestrians as well as causing difficulties for vehicles. Theexistence of the many driveways along the road means that vehicles parked on the opposite sideof the road cause problems for residents in terms of access and egress, as there is often very littlespace to manoeuvre.The application will therefore result in loss of amenity for existing residents of Druid Road.

Biodiversity and ecologyIn a time of climate change and generally a significant loss of wildlife habitats it is more importantthan ever to maintain and preserve our trees and green spaces within the City. The large gardenswithin the Conservation Area provide habitat areas for an abundance of wildlife and there aremany species of animals, birds and insects who are currently thriving. These include badgers, aprotected species, that has been resident in the immediate area for hundreds of years. Thegardens also provide an important wildlife corridor.The application proposes the removal of a number of trees, and a large area of the site will begiven over to building and paving. This represents a significant loss of currently open green spacewhich will harm the character of the Conservation Area as well as causing harm to theenvironment.If the application is permitted it will serve as a precedent for further inappropriate garden infillwhich will gradually but ultimately cause irreparable harm to the local ecosystem.

I object to this application on the grounds outlined above.

I am writing to inform the Planning Department that the proposals to develop in thegrounds of No. 1 Druid Road, right opposite where I live at No. 6, would be harmful to the SneydPark Conservation Area and also potentially to residents of Druid Road (see 5 below).

1. I find the application misleading - is it asking for planning permission to erect a new home or is itasking for planning permission to excavate and make alterations to the garden?2. The description 'a brownfield site' is misleading to say the least. I have lived in this area for over50 years and nothing has been built in No. 1's rear garden in that time. Unless the applicant isreferring to the garage which forms a lower part of the proposed site, but which itself is not beingre-developed, other than pulled down to provide access.3. Between No. 6 and No. 1 the road is 4.9m in width. Since 1997 when my wife, family and Imoved here there have been continuous difficulties in entering and exiting our driveway asvehicles are often parked opposite; as indeed happens elsewhere in the road. I have witnessedDruid Road blocked by parked vehicles.4. The driveway entrance of No. 1 is 2.7m in width and there are no plans to widen thisentranceway, nor provide passing places for existing No. 1 to park off road, so it is not shared.4.1 It is only near the top of the existing driveway that a vehicle can be entered or egressedbecause the low wall on the right hand side stopping doors from opening.4.2 This proposed driveway is not shared.4.3 This proposed driveway is not wide enough for emergency vehicles where it joins the road -there is not enough swing around space.5. This application steals the off street parking for No 1. Any more parking on the road andemergency vehicles may not be able to get down Druid Road at all. This could cause potentialdamage and be life threatening to properties/residents further down Druid Road (remember it is a

cul-de-sac).6. The existing house (No. 1) has been completely disregarded in this application except for thesuggestion of ashared bin store. How does No. 1 get their bin(s) to the road without trespassing? Through a rearwindow, through the house, across the front garden and over the wall?6.1 The existing rear entrance door to No. 1 would come straight out on to the proposed newdriveway. This would be an unacceptable Health and Safety hazard. It would also cause anyone totrespass on another property's driveway.6.2 Any new doors and/or off street parking for No. 1 should be part of this application, becausewithout it, this application (assuming it is for a new house) does not work, and therefore should berefused.6.3 Further off street parking would take away more greenness of the area, further eroding theConservation Area.

I am not going to comment on the aesthetics of this application - I do not live that close,although I am very familiar with this area.The phrases "garden grabbing" and "over development" do come to mind however.My main concern is about the trees.If this application gets the go ahead then 8 trees, or a mixture of trees and shrubs, will be lost.There is in Bristol the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) whereby the contribution madeto the environment by trees lost to facilitate development needs to be replaced so that in the (very)long term some of the lost benefit is replaced.The comments about the quality of the trees/shrubs that will be lost, made by this Applicant's treeperson, are uniformly derogatory. The trees cannot be seen from surrounding public paths andhighways, so the Community must ask the Council's Tree Officer - who will presumably be askedto comment by the Planning Officer - to confirm that these trees are of such low quality that theydo not warrant replacement under BTRS. Reading the Tree report one is reminded of Mandy Rice-Davies' famous comment "He would say that, wouldn't he?"If they are of reasonable quality then the number of replacement trees required will be estimatedafter measuring their girth. It is unlikely that space could be found on the remaining land, but theCommunity can always find space on public land within a mile without too much difficulty.

Two. The application fails to take into consideration issues of access and parking in Druid Road (a cul-de-sac), particularly in the proposed access area, adjacent to where Druid Road joins Stoke Hill. There is already congestion caused by parking at that end of the road, particularly because of visitors accessing activities in the Village Hall. Although parking is currently reduced due to the hall not being fully functional due to covid19, that end of the road is frequently obstructed with cars parked on the road, so passing cars have to weave and squeeze in and out. Cars, vans and lorries also park illegally on the pavements, to allow traffic to pass or to try to avoid being damaged by passing traffic because the road is so narrow. There is also a problem with access to driveways being obstructed by vehicles parked on the opposite side of the road, so there isn’t enough room to turn. The dwellings on the road are mainly occupied by older and elderly people and as a result there is almost continuous garden and building work taking place, resulting in extensive service parking during the working day.

There is no off street parking in the plan for the house no 1, so parking will need to be on the street, causing further obstruction. Alternatively the front garden will need to be removed to make parking spaces. There is only one parking space for the proposed house so a second car or visitors will most likely park on the street, rather than backing along a narrow drive. It seems inevitable that the proposal will add to the congestion in the road or further reduction of garden space. Three. The application refers to a ‘Brownfield site’. However, in reality it is a mature garden surrounded other large established gardens and has been for at least thirty years. Like other gardens in Druid Road, it is part of a green corridor that extends the environmental benefits of Old Sneed Park Nature Reserve into the wider area. As such, it helps sustain a rich variety of wildlife – badgers, foxes, occasional roe deer, rodents, amphibians, and a large variety of birds and insects. The site is part of this network and, as such, contributes to a nationally recognised ‘green’ environment.(See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/19/britain-s-best-urban-wildlife-sites).

As a former occupational therapist, I have the following concerns about the proposed 7bed property.

1. At present, many vehicles park on Druid Road where it meets the junction of Stoke Hill. I predictthere will be increased on road parking with the new property, resulting in cars being parked at thisjunction on both sides of Druid Road, limiting the available space to drive along Druid Road to onecar width.

2. Cars parked in Druid Road are often seen parked onto the pavement as Druid Road is sonarrow. This action severely restricts access for pedestrians, especially the residents withrestricted ambulant mobility, resulting in sometimes needing to walk on the road. For people whoneed to use a wheelchair, the only method is to use the road as there is little space available onthe pavement due to the grass verges. I predict further parking of this sort will occur therebyraising the risk level for pedestrians and wheelchair users.

3. The front garden of no 1 Druid Road could apply for parking area in lieu of the present frontgarden however the character of the road would be spoilt (re point 5).

4. With the increased working from home, being the new normal, having mindful moments in thegarden for mental well-being is proving essential for anyone. The proposed property residents mayadd extra noise from both the use of the house and the garden thus adding to any stresses felt bythe neighbours. Many residents lead extremely demanding professional lives or are enjoying theirretirement, and need the opportunity to relax and care for their mental health gained by gardeningor just chilling!

5. Druid Road will be celebrating its centenary in the next decade. The houses are typical of the1930s developments, and often passers by deliberately walk this way to enjoy looking at the iconicfeatures. It would be respectful to the era and to the history of Bristol to preserve this vintage look,and to prevent any modern looking building from being added, and to allow any extensions to theexisting properties (eg for disabled access) to mimic or compliment the 1930s design.

2/ Loss of Amenity

I object to the new dwelling due to the loss of amenity introducing a visually obtrusive mass of building visible

from neighbour’s rear windows. The diagrams below, Figs 3 and 4, show that an approximate 4.2m height of

solid wall will be introduced and highly visible from ours and a number of neighbouring houses reducing our

outlook. This will cause a loss of enjoyment of the open land and tranquil character of the combined rear

garden zone. Due to the upward slope of the rear gardens the height of this parapet would be taller than the

eaves line of the existing houses, contributing to the overbearing, visually intrusive and out-of-character

nature of this proposed development. Furthermore the unsightly introduction of a driveway with parked car(s)

in a quiet rear garden setting is very disturbing. The noise and fumes will be an intrusion and nuisance,

particularly as the driveway will put cars at a level almost in line with our bedroom windows.

Fig 3 Sketch showing obtrusive nature of development creating loss of amenity for 11 houses

Fig 4 sketch showing obtrusive scale and massing of development.

3/ Loss of Privacy

I object to the new dwelling due to the loss of privacy caused by a higher level driveway with occupants

alighting from vehicles and able to view the rear of ours and neighbours houses at bedroom window level.

Figure 5 below illustrates this point.

Fig 5 -showing loss of privacy with views from new driveway.

4/ Wildlife -Loss of ecology

The building and associated hard surfaces will use more than 50% of the existing green area of the plot at nr. 1

Druid Road. This will result in a significant loss of habitat for birds, insects and plants reducing the biodiversity

and ecological value of the area. This combined area of gardens represents a much-needed area of established

green habitat in this built-up suburb of Bristol which is also a conservation area. The submitted Design Access

and Heritage Statement refers to the garden as “brown-field land.” I believe this is a fundamental error and

that gardens are now designated as “greenfield land” further supporting this point. Fig 6 below illustrates this

impact. The small area of “green roof” does little to redress this and the submitted Climate Change and

Sustainability Statement suggests there could be Solar Thermal and Solar PV panels added to the roof in the

future which would reduce further reduce the planted area

Fig 6; sketch illustrating the additional hard-standing areas leading to loss of green habitat.

5/ Bristol Local Plan

Bristol City Council’s (BCC) Local Plan Policy DM21 Clause 2.21.1 states that “Private residential gardens make

an important contribution to the city’s green infrastructure and to the character of its residential areas. This

policy aims generally to retain private residential gardens in the city.” The proposed development would

destroy this existing garden in direct contravention of this Policy.

It also states under 2.21.2 that under the Core Strategy that “…the approach to new housing the delivery of

new homes …. has not been based on the assumption that the development of significant amount of garden

land will be required.” So this indicates that it is specifically against the Council’s policy to develop garden land.

If this development were allowed to go ahead it would set a dangerous precedent that would encourage

others to do the same resulting in the Council not being able to meet it’s stated policy of retaining private

residential gardens in the city.

Policy DM21 also states that Development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless any one of

three criteria for exception are met;

“Development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless:

i. The proposal would represent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densities are

appropriate; or

ii. The development would result in a significant improvement to the urban design of an area; or

iii. The proposal is an extension to an existing single dwelling and would retain an adequate area of functional

garden.

In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character and appearance of an

area.

Development involving front gardens should ensure that the character of the street is not harmed and that

appropriate boundary treatments and planting are retained.”

Under Item i, I note that the BCC “Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Annex: Site

Allocations Information 2014” includes a quota allocation for new houses in the Henleaze/Westbury on Trym

and Stoke Bishop area and that those locations are not in the vicinity of Druid Road. There is therefore no

shortage of housing development areas according to this Policy meaning there is no need for “a more efficient

use of land” in this area, and this is therefore not a “location where higher densities are appropriate,” and

there is therefore no need to develop this garden plot.

Under item ii, I cannot see how this development would result in any improvement, let alone a “significant

improvement” to the urban design of this area. Indeed the modern, cubic-shaped, flat roofed, characterless

building, shoe-horned into a back-garden, is completely out of character with the existing urban design.

Under item iii, the proposal is not an “extension to an existing dwelling” but a new dwelling so this does not

apply.

The development in this garden therefore does not satisfy any of the three criteria for exception where

development in a garden would be permitted and should therefore not be allowed to take place under Bristol

Council’s planning policies.

The same policy also concludes that “In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to

the character and appearance of an area.” The Character of the area is defined under the Sneyd Park

Conservation area General Enhancement Objectives; Description item 6 as; “From its origins to today,

landscape has been an important element in the character of the area, which together with rubble walls

defines and encloses streets and provides the setting for housing; creating a very mature arcadian suburb.”

There are insufficient details on finishes in the planning application to fully determine the character and

appearance of the proposed dwelling, however the insertion of a large, modern, cubic, flat-roofed building

complete with parking in the middle of an otherwise beautiful green-field, rear-garden setting, will

significantly harm the character and appearance of this “mature arcadian suburb”.

If this development were allowed to go ahead it would set a dangerous precedent that would encourage

others to do the same resulting in the Council not being able to meet it’s stated policy of not permitting

developments in rear gardens.

6/ Conservation Area

The Council Local Plan recognises additional restriction to development under a number of conservation areas.

Druid Road is included in the Sneyd Park Conservation Area whose guidelines (ref BCC Conservation Area

Enhancement Statements Nr. 23) include the following;

Under “General Enhancement Objectives;”

“Sub-Division of large gardens will only be considered in those parts of the conservation area where the

character and pattern of development will not be significantly affected.” The character and pattern of Druid

Road and the surrounding roads, Stoke Hill and Church Avenue, comprise high quality pitched-roof traditional

houses each with it’s own road frontage and each with typically substantial rear gardens creating open, green-

field, rear-garden zones that provide a peaceful, quiet, bio-diverse character. By inserting this large modern

cubic building, driveway and parking space right in the middle of this, otherwise uninterrupted, rear landscape

zone would completely, and harmfully, change the pattern and character of the development.

Under “Townscape;”

“The sub-division of large gardens into plots for smaller houses, if left unchecked, will damage the historic

pattern and character of building in the Conservation Area.” As described above, this proposed development

would completely change the pattern and character of the otherwise uninterrupted rear-garden zone between

Druid Road, Stoke Hill and Church Avenue. If the council allowed this to be built it would create a precedent

encouraging other developments in the same rear garden zone or other similar rear garden zones, leading to

exactly the “unchecked….damage to the historic pattern and character of building…” that the Conservation

area was expressly set up to prevent.

7/ Parking and traffic safety

Bristol Core Plan requires 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling.

Ie three off-street spaces would be needed between nr 1

Druid Road and the new house in it’s back garden. The

current plans indicate that cars belonging to the two different

households will block each other if parking on the same

shared driveway. This will lead to them parking on the road

which is narrow (carriageway only approx. 4.9m) and could

cause increased traffic congestion. The increased

manoeuvring of cars in and out of the single shared driveway

will also create a safety hazard to pedestrians and other road

users. The inevitable resultant parking on the road (and

pavement due to the small road width) will cause increased

congestion in the road, a safety hazard for pedestrians, and a

restriction for delivery and emergency vehicles.

Conclusion

The submitted report goes to great lengths to under-play the harm it is doing to the neighbourhood by

emphasising claims of a sustainable design. However the reality is that this is just an example of the blatant

“garden grabbing” that ruins healthy and sustainable neighbourhoods and which the Council’s policies

expressly seek to avoid. The more sustainable answer is not to build the house at all. On the basis of all the

above points, I fully object to the proposed development and unreservedly recommend refusal of planning

permission.

End

Fig 7; This image from the submitted Design, Heritage

and Access Statement shows the reduced road width,

and existing congested on-street and un-safe pavement

parking.

I am writing as a local resident and keen environmentalist. My understanding is that a planning application has been submitted recently for a new proposed detached 2-storey house in Druid Road, Stoke Bishop. I have a few queries and/or reservations about the proposals.First, there appears to be no specific parking provision included. This seems at odds with the likely residents, which will surely require parking. This may well have implication for other local residents in the vicinity.The property does not appear in keeping with the nature and age of buildings in the immediate locality. Whilst I can fully appreciate modern, environmentally sympathetic designs, the proposal would be located elsewhere and not amongst more conventional properties! The proposals also represent a 'taking away' of green, garden space which is particularly important locally given the wildlife enjoyed and the fact that the proposal lies within a Conservation Area. It would worry me that granting permission for a development of the magnitude would set a precedence for others to build by taking away gardens and fragmenting the neighbourhood.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Nicky Woodfield

Fielding- No:3 Page 2

Stoke Hill & Druid Road

(vi) The demolition of the garage will require Conservation Area Consent. Its demolition would remove an important element of the blending of this later built house (No: 1 1950ish) with the others in Druid Road, a cul-de-sac of houses built in the 1930s in the Arts & Crafts style, the houses being all different in design but stylistically similar. The garage top front design of No:1 directly reflects the design of the parapet above the front bedroom bay window of the adjoining house, No: 3 Druid Road . Its loss would harm the character and blending of the building at No: 1 with others in the road. Garage top front No:1 Druid Road Parapet on No:3 Druid Road

No:3

Druid Road

No: 1

41 -47

Stoke Hill

Fielding- No:3 Page 3

3. Parking & roadway

The increased density of housing & occupation of it will require additional car parking. The

proposals are totally inadequate

(a) The parking for cars as shown indicates space & turning for only one vehicle for the new

building. A new home of the size proposed (with 3 or 4 bedrooms) should have more

than one space off road (Appx 2 BDF Site Allocations & Development Management

Policies July 2014 – “SADMP”)

(b) The existing frontage property seems to be relying on parking in the (presumably)

shared driveway, which is totally impractical - it would need to have its own off-road

parking for more than one vehicle, being a 3 or 4 bedroom house, presumably in the

existing front garden. This has not been provided for in the Application drawings to date.

(c) The existing drive access is walled and narrow and is difficult to negotiate for modern

vehicles, leading to vehicles of current and previous tenants over the years at No:1 being

parked in the road. With the intensification of occupation of the whole plot at No:1,

parking in Druid Road is likely to be exacerbated either due to inadequate space

provided for the new proposed building to the rear or difficulties in negotiating the

driveway, in addition to occupants of the frontage house also parking in the road.

(d) The “shared” driveway would need to be suitable for access by Emergency vehicles

(e) Druid Road is a very narrow road, approx. 4.9m wide, dating back to the 1930s, when

most of the houses served by it were built. Getting in and out of driveways is difficult

when cars & other vehicles are parked in the road. Visitors are to be expected, but

frequent and permanent parking in the road causes problems for not only residents but

waste collection lorries, delivery vehicles and Emergency Services

(f) Very often, such parking on the road is partly on the pavement (due to the narrowness

of the road) which is an obstruction to pathway users.

(g) The intensification of on road parking makes it hazardous for cars entering and leaving

the road from and to Stoke Hill.

4. Development of Private Gardens/Backland Development

Private residential gardens are acknowledged in the Bristol Development Framework as

making an important contribution to the city’s green infrastructure and to the character of

its residential areas and should be retained and only developed in very limited

circumstances. (Policy DM21 SADMP) None of the circumstances apply in this case as:

(a) the higher density (roughly calculated to increase from approx. 10.38 to 28.57, thus 2 ¾

times, putting it at a considerably higher density than surrounding properties) is

inappropriate at this location because:

o location in a Conservation Area (“CA” ) with lower density housing all

around, recognised as important to preserve, and

o the increased density of housing & occupation of it will have a negative

impact on the local character and distinctiveness of the area which is

recognised as of importance under Policy BCS21 Core Strategy

Fielding- No:3 Page 4

(b) the proposed development does not result in a significant improvement to the urban

design of the area (local area recognised as of a design to be protected being in a CA &

not in need of improvement)

(c) the proposed development , being one new property and not the extension of an

existing one, this category is not applicable

Furthermore, the proposed development will result in harm to the character & appearance

of the area contrary to that Policy DM21, involving in particular:

 the destruction of a significant tree canopy to make way for the construction of the

new building

 the destruction of an environment for the existing neighbouring properties of clearly

defined public /active fronts and private /passive backs, which is an environment

which new development should itself create (Para 4.21.10 Explanation to Policy

BCS21 Core Strategy)

The backland development access arrangements should not cause adverse impacts to the

character and appearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage properties but the

proposed development will cause adverse impact in all such aspects (as detailed in this letter

under various headings) contrary to Policy DM26 SADMP

5. Noise, Loss of Privacy & Amenity affecting adjoining properties

(i) The noise associated with living in a 3 or 4 bedroom property, which would echo

from the walled sunken or semi-sunken areas, the to-ing & fro-ing of

cars/vehicles in the back garden with associated noises and the increased

density of housing and the intensification of occupation of No: 1 as a whole

would seriously impact on the tranquillity and enjoyment of the gardens of No:

3 and other nearby properties in Druid Road and of neighbouring properties on

Stoke Hill which back onto No: 1 Druid Road

(ii) The “private/passive back” (all rear gardens) of the properties mentioned

above will be destroyed which is unacceptable; a hitherto tranquil area will be

subjected to intrusive and damaging noise and disturbance

(iii) This will also have a negative impact on the privacy of the residents of such

neighbouring or nearby properties due to:

a. the height on the slope of the parking area and outside spaces of the new

house being at the same level as bedroom windows of those properties and

b. the close proximity to the boundary of the new building and its outside

spaces to other garden boundaries, hence within earshot in the gardens.

(iv) The wide open green outlook from all the neighbouring properties will change

dramatically for the worse with the removal of so much greenery and the

existence of this huge building

(v) The new house will create light pollution in an otherwise dark area of rear

gardens, light from the two levels reflecting off surrounding walls and emanating

from the cupola after dark.

Fielding- No:3 Page 5

(vi) All the above comments would similarly apply to the enjoyment of the frontage

house & garden at No: 1.

6. Loss of and damage to Trees

(i) In all, 8* mature trees and shrubs are to be removed, including 3 evergreens (2

Laurel and 1 Magnolia tree), leaving only 5* remaining “On Site” (T1 pear, T2

bay laurel, T9 holly, T11* small Lawson cypress, T12 laurel). T16-20 are all “Off

Site” in gardens on Stoke Hill and the two large Ash (T10 & T13 incorrectly

claimed as On Site) belong to No:3, close to the boundary but are “Off Site”.

(ii) *It is noted that T11 Lawson Cypress, also an evergreen, is not shown on the

Plans at all – presumably that will also be removed.

(iii) T1 Pear and T10 Ash in particular (& others may too) have root systems which

are likely to suffer severe damage by the excavation of the site and construction

of the proposed house and surrounding hard standing, paths and patio areas.

Both trees have a root radius of 6m, the extent of which is shown in the Diagram

below. There are other large trees off-site to the south-east, not mapped, which

may also be adversely affected by the proposed works.

(iv) Being evergreens, Magnolia and laurel provide year round green-scape in the

back garden sweep of vegetation. The loss of tree canopy cover will change the

outlook from many angles in Druid Road (from houses 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, & 11A in

particular) and bordering Stoke Hill properties (Nos:41, 43, 45 & 47) in all

seasons.

Fielding- No:3 Page 6

(v) A substantial number of trees & shrubs are being removed with only boundary

hedging being provided instead. There is no mitigation for the loss of so much

tree canopy and reliance seems to be made on trees in neighbouring gardens

with the addition of some boundary hedging only.

(vi) The destruction of a significant tree canopy to make way for the construction of

the new house and its surrounding hard areas will seriously harm the character

and appearance of the area.

7. Wildlife

The very green nature of the gardens of Druid Road encourages a wide variety of all types of

wildlife such as birds (nesting & visiting), butterflies, foxes, slow worms, badgers, and

squirrels – the gradual loss of garden expanses here would result in a loss of habitat for such

wildlife. The loss of tree canopy and shrubs to make way for this development and the very

high proportion of garden to be given over to the house, hardstanding, patios and pathways,

leaves very little actual green space at all. (On our rough calculations, the footprint of the

house in the rear part of the garden behind the dividing hedge line is approx. 23% of the site,

& including hardstanding, patios & pathways etc it is 59% “built” and 41% “green”). The

provision of a green roof will not provide adequate compensation for that loss and our

wildlife will suffer.

8. Sustainability – Design & Appearance of the Proposed Development

(i) All bedrooms should enjoy a pleasant outlook – a blank wall is hardly that!

(ii) The lack of any garden area other than patio style areas, very limited play space

(contrasting with the very generous plots of neighbouring houses) and the

inadequacy of the parking provision for a three or four bedroom property limits the

desirability of this new property as a family home which it claims to be.

(iii) The site is a dark end of the garden with trees in neighbouring gardens not

necessarily shown on the plans or Tree Report likely to provide shading at various

times of the day and year which could make it rather dark and dingy to live in and it

will perhaps not receive the natural light needed for its design to succeed

(iv) No storage space has been provided, whether indoors or outside:

a. For bicycles –a secure weatherproof store for a minimum of 3 bikes is required

but if a family is to live there, space for, say, 5 or more might be needed . Only

an open bike rack for 2 bikes is shown.

b. For garden equipment to maintain grassed areas, hedges etc

c. For ladders to reach to water & weed the green roof which should of course be

regularly maintained

(v) Despite it being semi-dug down into the slope, the new building will still stand 4m or

so as somewhat of a monstrosity of a huge shed or concrete block visible from many

properties around including from the public realm, viewed from the driveway

leading to the rear.

(vi) The existing property at No: 1 has a back door and window at ground floor level and

another window at first floor level which all open directly onto the driveway which

surely cannot be permitted.

Fielding- No:3 Page 7

(vii) The existing house will be overborne by the new house up the slope, and lack its

own privacy particularly when occupants of the new house are in their garden and

car standing areas.

(viii) NB: Block Plans 1930.113 and 114 both show an incorrect scale

9. Desirability of existing houses

Properties in Druid Road with their reasonably sized gardens remain desirable, popular and

in that sense sustainable without the need to carve up the gardens. They are much in

demand and sell very quickly. There are always private individuals & families wanting to buy

here; notes through the door from time to time testify to this – latest in July 2020.

The carving up of No: 1 Druid Road, overlooking an enormous block building and with a

shared driveway, and backdoor & windows onto the shared drive would make the frontage

property less desirable as a family home.

10. Delivery of New Homes in Bristol

Policy BCS5 Core Strategy states that the development of new homes will primarily be on

previously developed sites across the city but as stated earlier, residential gardens in built up

areas are not considered previously developed land.

The Council’s minimum target of 26,400 homes between 2006 and 2026 has already been

exceeded as has the target of a minimum of 33,500 homes by 2036. Bristol Residential

Development Survey 2019 states that 23,319 dwellings (net) have been completed since

2006 and that as at 31 March 2019 there was a further 11,066 in the pipeline, thus a total of

34,385.

The main pressure on the Council is to provide affordable homes. Sites across the city have

been identified as suitable for housing development and private residential gardens are not

sought to fulfil targets for new homes.

Conclusion

In summary, the proposed development is totally unacceptable and the application should

be refused.

Paul & Marian Fielding

3 Druid Road

Stoke Bishop

Bristol BS9 1LJ

7 October 2020

As Chair of the Sneyd Park Resident's Association (SPRA) I wish to fully object to thisapplication.After considering the detailed application, it is fair to say certain points have been missed or notconsidered.Therefore SPRA's objections are the following:-1. The said application is within the Sneyd Park Conservation Area, and although noted byapplicant, has not taken into account the cube design may not be supported by local designguides as it is so out of place and does not enhance the local aesthetic. The designers has tried tohide most of the building underground and supplied a green roof, to try and lessen its impact on itssurrounding, however it still remains a large cube structure at the end of a garden surrounded bysix other gardens.In short, not suitable, in keeping and destroying a garden.2. SPRA object to garden infill, which has been a concern of Bristol Council and the Government.Any granting of such an application may encourage others to submit applications of a similar basiswhich would destroy the character and purpose of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area. In additionsix neighbouring gardens would be damaged by loss of privacy.3. Parking, although one space has been planned for a family home, parking for the current househas been totally removed. Therefore SPRA object on lack parking for two family homes with oneparking space, which goes against current planning recommendations. A concern would be anadditional application to make the current front garden into parking, further destroying thecharacter of the region.4. Drive way to proposed property; there has been little to no consideration given to attachinggardens which would suffer from additional noise. In addition the proposed driveway would go pastthe back door of the current property which surely is a Health and Safety issue.

5. SPRA also note there is no formal request for the garage demolition.7. Six homes would be directly affected by the proposed application, which is not acceptable.6. The application describes the site as a Brownfield Site. By definition;" A brownfield site is anarea that has been used before and tends to be disused or derelict land. Such sites are usuallyabandoned areas in towns and cities which have been used previously for industrial andcommercial purposes." SPRA object to the use of this word as the land in question is a garden.7. SPRA also note there is not a list of neighbours notified, which is unlike planning but may bedue to current circumstances.8. The application is very unclear of the proposed and current property usages.9. I quote from the Sneyd Park Conservation document;https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32819/23+-+Sneyd+Park.pdf/adeb16a8-3395-47c7-a97d-2e4d848a2da5" Land Use(3) Continuing pressure for new housing in the area has lead in the past to the loss of originalhouses, the further sub-division of large gardens and the development of existing open land forresidential use.This would increase the density of development and diminish the open character ofthe Conservation Area.(4) There is a need to retain the residential character of the area.

Townscape(4) Further loss of original large detached houses would damage the character and appearance ofthe Conservation Area, which is dependant on a balance between landscaped settings to plotcoverage by development.(5) The sub-division of large gardens into plots for smaller houses, if left unchecked will damagethe historic pattern and character of building in the Conservation Area.(6) The layout, form and design of new housing developments, particularly with their open planlayouts, has in the past been out of keeping with the essential character of the area."

In conclusion, as planning know SPRA have and do try to suggest alterations to applications but inthis instance I would ask all the above points are taken into consideration and the application isfully declined as being totally unsuitable to the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and to the adjoiningneighbouring gardens and homes.Stephen Small Chair of SPRA.

I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds

1) The area is a conservation area characterised with detached and semi detached with relativelylarge suburban gardens. Allowing these gardens to become infilled with residential property wouldcompletely change the character of the area and would violate the purpose of creating aconservation area in the first place. This development would create a precedent. A number ofother properties in the near vicinity could potentially build residential houses their back gardens2) The typically large gardens in the area make them a haven for wildlife. The area supports,badgers, foxes, bats and numerous bird species including owls, sparrow hawks. Wildlife would bedamaged by allowing gardens to be " infilled". The proposed development would result insubstantial loss of garden area - especially taking into account no provision has been made in theexisting plans for off road parking at the existing residence. ( see point3)3) The plan would require the demolition of an existing garage to allow access to the new property.No provision has been made for parking at the existing residence. So either a further off roadparking area would need to be created in the existing front garden of No 1 or their cars would haveto be parked on the road. Druid Road is very narrow so cars parked on the road typically parkpartially on the pavement or inhibit access to cars entering and exiting driveways with consequentsafety issues. All other houses have some provision for off road parking. So the existing No 1would be untypical. It would either have no garden or no off road parking.

OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION AT 1 Druid Road, Stoke Bishop, Bristol ref20/04334/F

I don't have access to the internet so I have asked my daughter, Pauline Tyrrell to submit theseobjections on my behalf.

Design and appearance of the development:The proposed development is not in keeping with the neighbouring properties which are 1920sstyle red brick/rendered. It is basically a cubed timbered/rendered structure and that looks ugly incomparison. There appears from the plans to be only one exit from the property, on the lowerground floor with the bedrooms having limited access outside to the sunken terrace/courtyard.There doesn't appear to be any way up to the ground level from the courtyard. ie steps.These plans are an overdevelopment of an existing site and the applicant refers to this project asa development of a "Brownfield" site, but it is at present a residential garden, containing aselection of different mature trees, shrubs and grassed areas. How can it be a brownfield site?This is blatant "garden grabbing" and if approved sets a precedent for other residential propertiesto be built in the rear gardens in the locality.

Conservation and wildlife:This is a conservation area, with the surrounding houses having large gardens which are used bythe residents and wildlife alike. It is not unusual to see foxes, jays, badgers, squirrels and manyvarieties of birds in the garden. Their habitats will be destroyed with the removal oftrees/shrubs/grassland from the gardens. The large gardens are a peaceful respite from the busymain road "Stoke Hill", that are a valued asset to the residences especially during this COVID

pandemic when the gardens are used for recreational purposes.

Parking:The parking "turning area" will be adjoining the bottom of the garden at 43 Stoke Hill, thereby therewill be noise and light intrusion from any vehicles in use, especially in the winter months when thedriveway will be very dark. There appears to be only one parking space in front of the new buildand it looks as though the existing garage will need to be demolished to gain access to theproperty. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the car parking facilities for the occupants ofthe existing house. It may mean that they have to park their vehicles on Druid Road (already avery narrow road) or else pave over the front of their garden which would be an eyesore visually.

Highway safety:There doesn't seem to be any mention of car parking facilities for the occupants of the existinghouse. If they park their vehicle on the shared drive then they would be blocking the access for theproposed house.....alternatively it may mean they have to park their vehicles on Druid Road whichis a very narrow road or pave over their front garden. With increasing use of internet shopping,more delivery vehicles ie Amazon and Supermarkets, will be parking on Druid Road which will bea danger to other residents, adults children nearby.

Loss of Light and privacy:There are conifer trees on the boundary between my property and the proposed development, theroots of which will be damaged when the driveway is extended. This will result in a loss of privacywhen using the garden. Instead of trees at the bottom of my garden I will see people and movingvehicles.Also there are concerns that the roof may be used as a sun terrace, especially bearing in mindthat some of the existing boundary trees have been omitted from the plans. These trees couldresult in areas of shade, and along with the obvious lack of garden, may result in the use of theroof as a sun terrace. Such a move would cause further loss of privacy and intrusion to theneighbours.

There may be artificial lighting installed on the driveway and light reflected from the glass lanternon the roof especially in winter months with the shorter days.

Noise and pollution:Noise pollution from the ventilation and Air source heat pump would be an intrusion whilst in thegarden. Also engine noise and engine emissions of vehicles using the driveway for access to theproperty.There is no mention of the intended use of the property, whether it will be sold, lived in by theapplicants, rented out or Air BnB. I believe the existing property is already being rented and thiswill give rise to maintenance and upkeep issues for both properties if both are rented.

Future development:

If this planning application is approved and the property built, then there may be future expansionupwards or closer to the boundary's which may not require planning permission, thereby causingfurther intrusion.

Dear Sirs,RE: Application at No 1 Druid Road, Stoke Bishop, Reference: 20/04334/FWe wish to formally object to the proposed application on the following grounds:The application proposal is described as 'One new detached dwelling to the rear of 1 Druid Road'.However, in order to create the new access route to the proposed dwelling, the existing garage toserve No 1 Druid road would need to be demolished. Whilst the plans identify this, the applicationfails to include the necessary application to demolish a building or structure within theConservation Area. This represents a fundamental flaw in the application and if granted consent,its implementation would be unlawful.The applicant refers to the garden as forming 'brownfield' or previously developed land. Thisdefinition was changed in the NPPF 2012 and all residential gardens are now characterised asgreenfield land. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development cannot beautomatically applied.Conservation Area:Druid Road is situated within the defined Snyed Park Conservation Area. As such it is recognisedas a place with a special character and pattern of development that must be preserved and/orenhanced through any new development consented within in. The Conservation AreaEnhancement Statement for Snyed Park refers to the historic pattern of development andcharacter of the area which can be defined entirely as a residential suburb and in this part of theconservation area, a garden village characterised by 1920/30s housing with formal frontages andlarge rear gardens.The Conservation Area Enhancement Statement refers to the detrimental impact that developmentof additional dwellings within gardens can have on the character of the area. It is thereforeimportant to retain the historic pattern and open character of the Conservation Area. However, this

application would significantly alter that historic character and built form of Druid Road and itssurrounds which would be out of keeping with the Conservation Area as a whole and causesignificant harm to the character and setting of the Conservation Area.Harm to the Conservation Area is a material consideration that must be given significant weightwhen determining any planning application. It is considered that this harm fundamentallyoutweighs any benefit that the proposed dwelling could offer.Highways Safety:The proposals for a shared driveway would create a conflict of vehicle movements resulting inunacceptable highway safety. Vehicles from the existing dwelling, no1, are likely to have to exit thedriveway in reverse which could create an unacceptable conflict with vehicles, pedestrians orcyclists attempting to access the proposed dwelling to the rear.Parking Standards:The proposal includes 1 off-street parking space. However, the Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies July 2014 Parking Standards requires 1.5 parking spaces for a residentialdwelling of this size.The proposal fails to meet the required standard and will result in residents parking cars on DruidRoad which is a narrow street demarked with driveways all along. Furthermore, the applicationfails to demonstrate how adequate off-street parking will be provided for the existing dwelling at no1 Druid Road, since the application requires the existing garage to be demolished and for thecurrent driveway to become a share access way. This will further contribute to issues of highwaysafety.Development of Private GardensThe Site Allocations and Development Management Policies July 2014 document includes aspecific policy on development within gardens.Policy DM 21: Development of Private Gardens states that:Development involving the loss of gardens will not be permitted unless:i. The proposal would represent a more efficient use of land at a location where higher densitiesare appropriate; orii. ii. The development would result in a significant improvement to the urban design of an area; oriii. iii. The proposal is an extension to an existing single dwelling and would retain an adequatearea of functional garden.In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to the character andappearance of an area. Development involving front gardens should ensure that the character ofthe street is not harmed and that appropriate boundary treatments and planting are retained.The proposal is situated within a Conservation Area characterised by a large grain developmentpattern. Dwellings are low density consistent with the garden village suburb setting. As suchhigher densities are not appropriate in this location and will cause harm to the Conservation Area.The proposal would be detrimental to the urban design of the area as it would be out of keepingwith the character and development pattern.It does not form an extension to an existing dwelling in the form of an annexe, it is an entirelyseparate dwelling.The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area particularly when

viewed against the setting of the Conservation Area.Residential Amenity:Residential amenity must be considered in the context of both the existing residents and possiblefuture residents should planning permission be granted.In terms of existing residents, the proposal is at odds with the setting and character of the areaand would create a precent for future development that would fundamentally alter and harm thecharacter of this important conservation area.The proposed dwelling would have no active frontage or public realm for future residents. This isat odds with the character of the area. This is further exacerbated by the amount of screening thatis required to create any separation between dwellings. This would have a detrimental impact onthe amenity of future residents.Design:The application fails to provide sufficient information related to the design and finish of theproposed dwelling or its design rationale.The application does not include a palette of materials or information related to how these havebeen selected and how they would preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.Whilst sustainability and sustainable materials are an important consideration in determiningplanning applications, that must be balanced against other material considerations includingwhether harm will be caused to the conservation area. In this regard, the overall impact of theproposals will cause significant harm to the character of the conservation area by fundamentallyaltering the built form and setting of this part of Stoke Bishop.On the basis of the above, we request that officers refuse the planning application.Yours sincerelyMrs P A Fisher

I object to the construction of a new house in the garden of 1 Druid Road because of itsunnecessary reduction and destruction of an important wildlife area.

I feel qualified to comment on this having both a degree and PhD in Zoology from the University ofBristol, a 40 year career as a wildlife filmmaker which includes being the Head of the BBC NaturalHistory Unit and recent experience in environmental issues as the producer of the Netflix seriesOur Planet and a director of David Attenborough A Life on Our Planet. My company, SilverbackFilms is currently making a major series about British wildlife.

Stoke Bishop and Sneyd Park function ecologically as a crucial 'open woodland' supporting thelarger natural ecosystem of the Avon Gorge and Leigh Woods. As such, both the range andabundance of wildlife is exceptional. I have a record of 43 bird species in 9 Druid Road which isexceptional for an urban garden. This is because the Gorge species like rare Ravens andPeregrine falcons use this extended habitat. We also have abundant populations of mammalssuch as badgers, foxes and bats as well as reptiles like slowworms and amphibians such asnewts, frogs and toads. Insect populations are also exceptionally varied and abundant.

This build will inevitably remove some crucial trees and damage or destroy the root systems ofmany others. The removal of space will disrupt a garden corridor that links Druid Road to ChurchAvenue. However, what is extremely worrying about this plan is it sets a president for infilling backgardens with new housing in Stoke Bishop and Sneyd Park which will destroy the open woodlandecosystem. Surely this is not an area to be treated in this manner especially at a time when Britishwildlife is under such great pressure.

I object to this planning application for a number of reasons.This is a Conservation Area. This will have a detrimental impact on wildlife. We have badgers,foxes,owls,jays,woodpeckers and many more beautiful animals. This construction, if given the goahead, will deter these creatures from visiting the area and from visiting the surrounding area.Animals will not be able to create their environments and raise their offspring within the plot or thesurrounding area.The applicant refers to the area as "brownfield" or previously developed land. This is naivebecause all residential gardens are now characterised as greenfield or not previously developedland.There is no application for conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing garage at 1DRUID RD.I am not sure how highway safety is applied when you have a shared driveway, creating a conflictof vehicle movements. This is an issue for family dwellers with or without children.Parking standards requires 1.5 parking spaces for the size stated. The proposal is for 1 off streetparking bayThe road is a narrow road and the increase in vehicles will create a parking issue,drive through issue and an increased percentage for incidents and accidents.

1. Parking. Although one space has been planned for a family home, parking for thecurrent house has been removed. Therefore I object on lack of parking for two family homes withone parking space. A concern would be an additional application to make the current front gardeninto parking, further destroying the character of the region.

2. The application is within the Sneyd Park Conservation Area. What has not been taken intoaccount is that the cube design may not be supported by local design guides as it is so out ofplace and does not enhance the local aesthetic.It is not suitable in keeping and is destroying agarden.3. With regard to the driveway to the proposed property there has been little or no considerationgiven to the attaching gardens. These would suffer from additional noise. In addition the proposeddriveway would go past the back door of the current property which surely is a Health and Safetyissue, more so for families with children.4. I object to the garden infill, which has been a concern of Bristol Council and the Government.The granting of such an application may encourage others to submit applications of a similarbasis.This would destroy the character and purpose of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area. Inaddition six neighbouring gardens would be damaged.5. Six homes would be directly affected by the proposed application, which is not acceptable.6. The application describes the site as a Brownfield Site. By definition;" A brownfield site is anarea that has been used before and tends to be disused or derelict land. Such sites are generallyabandoned areas in towns and cities which have been previously used for industrial andcommercial purposes." I object to the use of this word as the land in question is indeed a garden.8. The application is very unclear of the proposed and current property usages.9. Please may I quote from the Sneyd Park Conservation document;

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32819/23+-+Sneyd+Park.pdf/adeb16a8-3395-47c7-a97d-2e4d848a2da5" Land Use(3) Continuing pressure for new housing in the area has lead in the past to the loss of originalhouses, the further sub-division of large gardens and the development of existing open land forresidential use. This would increase the density of development and diminish the open characterof the Conservation Area. (4) There is a need to retain the residential character of the area.

Townscape(4) Further loss of original large detached houses would damage the character and appearance ofthe Conservation Area, which is dependant on a balance between landscaped settings to plotcoverage by development. (5) The sub-division of large gardens into plots for smaller houses, ifleft unchecked will damage the historic pattern and character of building in the Conservation Area.(6) The layout, form and design of new housing developments, particularly with their open planlayouts, has in the past been out of keeping with the essential character of the area."In conclusion I would ask all the above points are taken into consideration and the application isfully declined as being totally unsuitable to the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and to the adjoiningneighbouring gardens and homes.Thank you.

This proposed dwelling is totally inappropriate to the Conservation Area and would becrowding out the present area on the corner of Druid Road, and would greatly affect the houses onStoke Hill which back on to the site. The access is not good and with the size of present day cars Iwould say it is insufficient.

This is garden grabbing which the Government are trying to prevent.