Application Details

Reference 21/00018/F
Address 1 Whytes Close Bristol BS9 3HU  
Street View
Proposal Construction of a new two storey four bedroom detached dwelling with on site parking and associated works.
Validated 11-01-21
Type Full Planning
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 15-03-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 11-03-21
Determination Deadline 08-03-21
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 25-06-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 23  Unstated: 1  Total: 24
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: NEUTRAL

I note in this latest application for development on this site that the felling of trees prior to the first application for development is described. These fellings were very obvious to everyone, and were remarked upon by commentators including me when the first application was under consideration.
I note in the Arboricultural report that the calculation for BTRS means that ten replacement trees will need to be planted. According to planning policy these should be planted either on site, or within a mile of the development on public land.
"Mitigation for the tree losses is proposed through the planting of ten replacement trees, in accordance with the BTRS liability along with hedges and shrubs. landscape planting scheme to be submitted separately to this report for the approval of Bristol City Council."
No landscape plan is submitted with this Application. Presumably that will follow should permission be granted.

I am a just little concerned about the wording of the paragraph in the Arboricultural report. I hope it does not suggest that hedges and shrubs planted in such garden space as might remain could/would be regarded as such mitigation for tree loss. The Bristol Tree Forum had a lengthy debate with Bristol City Council planners about hedging as mitigation for tree loss, and the Council has agreed that domestic hedging does not mitigate for tree loss. Thus the community would expect to see decent sized trees planted on site, or on public land locally, to mitigate for the loss to the environment cause by these tree fellings.

Public Comments

on 2021-06-01   OBJECT

I write as an objector to the above planning application for which the original determination date was the 8th March. Is there an explanation as to why this application has not by now been either determined or withdrawn, given that construction work is well under way on a semi-detached dwelling which was previously given permission (20/02624/F)? Additionally, in the interests of demonstrating the dominating effect on the landscape of the permitted four bedroom dwelling, which will combine with a two storey extension to the original house at 1 Whytes Close I attach a photograph which has been sent to me of the work underway, including preparation for the dormer extension of the adjacent property. It is clear to see why the Planning Inspector previously refused permission for a detached dwelling due to its proximity to the ancient stone wall and loss of the green "buffer" of garden land and the effect on the landscape and local character, not least because of the topography of the site. Even with a semi detached house this effect is sadly apparent. It is hugely regrettable that according to the applicants they were advised that a semi detached property would be acceptable at the time of the first refused application before all the implications had been clarified (21/00018/F Planning Statement page 1). Finally it is also unclear whether condition 3 has been approved as there is no evidence of this among the documents on the Planning portal. Regards, Jill Kempshall CPRE Avon and Bristol

on 2021-03-19   OBJECT

I object to this proposal as it looks like overdevelopment of a corner plot in a Close thatwas designed originally for 12 houses. The spacing and parking allowances reflect the originalbuild design and the area cannot accommodate more residents and car users. The applicant hasbeen refused planning previously for a detached house and to build one with a 900mm gap isridiculous. I feel very sorry for the residents who have had years of stress and worry with repeatedapplications and I have seen the deliberate destruction of a lovely corner garden to make it looklike a brown site. I do not live in the road but I am in Westbury and I walk along this road frequentlyon my way to the village, it would be a great shame to see another property not in keepingcrammed into the site which was originally one garden with an ancient stone wall surrounding it.The appearance and character of the Close will be ruined if this application is allowed anddevelopers should not be able to use "garden grabbing " as a means of making profit withoutregard for the history of the site and its neighbours.

on 2021-03-12   OBJECT

I would like to oppose the above Application for the following reasons

The proposed development would be out of character to theexisting properties in Whytes Close which is a narrow cul de sac and would only increaseproblems with access and the alreadydifficult parking problems posed by school children and access on a very narrow busy road.The development would be too close to the ancient stone wall.It would overlook my back garden.It seems a very small plot which is surrounded by the old stone wall so would look totally out ofplace in such a small space.I agree with the other comments put forward by the other opposers and do not feel there is anyimprovement to the previous proposed development which was refused.

on 2021-02-25   OBJECT

on 2021-02-25   OBJECT

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

I live at 1 Aust Lane, BS9 3HB, directly across Passage Road from the proposed newdevelopment. I object to this proposal 21/00018/F.

The proposed new building is about 4.5m (approximately) from the ancient stone wall along thewest side of Passage road, which is too close and not in keeping with the street scene andbuilding line along the west side of Passage Road.

The proposal is very incongruous to the street scene along Whytes close. It's form doesn't matchthe character of the street, and its spacing of only 0.9m from the existing 1 Whytes Close, up tothe rooftop, is too close and would spoil the Whytes Close street scene.

The proposal will be harmful to traffic and parking issues and pedestrian safety. The proposednew driveway risks accidents when cars turn left from Passage Road into Whytes Close.

The recent previous planning application 19/01762/F by this applicant was refused because ofsome failings that were clearly explained in those decisions, yet this new proposal repeats many ofthose failings Surely therefore this new application should be refused too and I politely request thatyou do refuse it.

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

16 February 2021

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

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

Objection to Planning Application, 1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU, ref 21/00018/F

1.I live at Elmfield Gate Lodge, directly across Passage Road from the proposed newdevelopment. Elmfield Gate lodge is identified as an unlisted building of merit. I object to thisproposal 21/00018/F.

2.The proposed new building is just 4.5m (approximately) from the ancient stone wall along thewest side of Passage road, at its rear elevation. This is too close, and out of keeping with the

street scene and building line along the west side of Passage Road, where all the other buildingsare set back some 10m from the stone wall. This will harm the street scene along Passage Road.

3. The proposal is very clearly out of keeping with the street scene along Whytes close too. Itspositioning at just 900mm from the existing house at 1 Whytes Close, all the way up to the top ofthe roofs, is far too close, and will seriously harm the Whytes Close street scene.

4.The proposal will adversely impact traffic and parking issues/safety. Whytes Close is already atcapacity as regard parking, and furthermore the proposed new driveway represents a significanthazard/risk of accident especially for cars turning left from Passage Road into Whytes Close.

5. As you will be aware, a previous planning application reference 19/01762/F by this applicantinvolved a proposed detached house similar to this proposal, spaced 1m apart from the existinghouse rather than 900mm, and was refused by your team and upon appeal. The principal reasonsgiven then for those refusals both by your team and by the appeal inspector apply equally here. Inparticular, your colleague Mr Wilkinson wrote on the first page of his report:

"This application is inappropriate for the area. It represents intensive and intrusive overdevelopment. It has no regard to the building line, the visual amenity or the impact on traffic,parking and highway".

He then said on page 10

"the Case Officer advised the applicant to make the following amendments to the scheme in orderfor the application to be viewed favourably: - The [detached] dwelling amended in design, formand siting so it is attached to No.1 Whytes Close, to limit the intrusion into the side garden andform a semi-detached pair of dwellings of a similar character; in keeping with the cul-de-sac"

The appeal inspector supported him. This new application 21/00018/F breaches the principles setout in these very recent decisions and it therefore follows logically that it should be refused.

6.As a separate and perhaps incidental point, the 3rd paragraph of the planning statement ishardly truthful where it says:

"Whilst the applicant is delighted to have received planning permission for a new 4 bedroomdwelling attached to No.1 Whytes Close, he would prefer to live in a detached property. With thisin mind he is proposing to move the attached dwelling 900mm away from the original housemaking it detached."

The applicant is actually a company but the individual behind the company clearly has no intentionto live in the proposed new house as can be seen from the statements in the CIL documentation.

I therefore respectfully urge that application 21/00018/F be refused.

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

My objections to this planning application are summed up by the objection made by No.5 Whytes Close. I completely agree with all of their comments and am particularly concernedabout the safety aspect for residents, with reduced on road parking and the proximity to our localschool. I also wholeheartedly agree that moving the proposed property closer to the ancient walland building with such a small gap between the properties is completely inappropriate for this site.

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

I have read all the other comments and objections and and agree with them and object .

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

I have carefully read the application and all the objections and wish to say that i agreewith all the objections and vehemently object to this planning application.

on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

I am a frequent visitor to Whytes Close. During a normal working week and especiallyduring school drop of and pick up times, the road can be dangerously clogged up with parkedcars.

The road was never really designed to allow for on street parking apart from one space at thebottom of the Close immediately opposite the front garden of number 6. There are a maximum ofthree other possible places to park without blocking access to other properties and they are:immediately opposite the front garden of number 2 OR number 10; and 2 possible placesimmediately opposite the front garden of number 1 OR number 11/12. In each instance it isEITHER - OR as the road is NOT wide enough to accommodate cars parked on both sides of theroad and still allow access. In busy periods cars are also parked at the very top of the Close whichalthough is wider, creates a hazard for drivers turning left from Passage Road into the Close as itis a blind corner and indeed for drivers leaving the close and turning into Passage Road

The creation of a new driveway and dropped kerb outside the proposed new dwelling will reducethe number of safe on-street parking spaces by one (and potentially two spots as manoeuvrabilityis restricted) without blocking access to the new driveway. It will also encourage parking at thevery top of the road which is dangerous for drivers entering or leaving the close.

I therefore request that the application is declined.

on 2021-02-16  

I note in this latest application for development on this site that the felling of trees priorto the first application for development is described. These fellings were very obvious to everyone,and were remarked upon by commentators including me when the first application was underconsideration.I note in the Arboricultural report that the calculation for BTRS means that ten replacement treeswill need to be planted. According to planning policy these should be planted either on site, orwithin a mile of the development on public land."Mitigation for the tree losses is proposed through the planting of ten replacement trees, inaccordance with the BTRS liability along with hedges and shrubs. landscape planting scheme tobe submitted separately to this report for the approval of Bristol City Council."No landscape plan is submitted with this Application. Presumably that will follow should permissionbe granted.

I am a just little concerned about the wording of the paragraph in the Arboricultural report. I hope itdoes not suggest that hedges and shrubs planted in such garden space as might remaincould/would be regarded as such mitigation for tree loss. The Bristol Tree Forum had a lengthydebate with Bristol City Council planners about hedging as mitigation for tree loss, and the Councilhas agreed that domestic hedging does not mitigate for tree loss. Thus the community wouldexpect to see decent sized trees planted on site, or on public land locally, to mitigate for the loss tothe environment cause by these tree fellings.

on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

1. I write as the owner/occupier of 57 Passage Rd

2. I have read the current objections and agree with all of their points and so do not wish to simplyreiterate the valid issues that have been raised.

3. This is the 5th application that this current developer has submitted with regard to this site. Thelast but one (19/01762/F) which was also for a single additional detached house was refused byboth the council and later on appeal. The previous application (20/02624/F) for an additional semi-detached house was approved. If one reads the appeal refusal letter produced by S Shapland thefollowing should be noted. Of the first 6 reasons for refusing the application the inspectormentioned the fact that the house was detached in 5 of these reasons. From this it is notunreasonable to conclude that the inspector considered that the single biggest reason for therefusal was the fact that the proposed house was detached.

4. The move from the previous application (20/02624/F) to the current one is being presented as aminor change from a semi-detached to a detached house. Just adding another wall and moving ita few feet. But this is not the case a detached house is fundamentally different from a semi. If thiswere not the case S Shapland would not have highlighted this fact so prominently in the refusalletter.

5. If this application were to be accepted, then it must be in contradiction of the previous appealdecision and makes a mockery of the planning process. In many other legal situation such areversal would make similar decisions unsafe.

6. I therefore request that the current application ( 21/00018/F) is refused

on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

The granting of Planning Application 20/02624/F for a semi-detached attachment to the existingdwelling was an unfortunate mistake - granted under delegated powers.

Please do not further compound this serious error of judgement by granting this latest Applicationfor a detached dwelling to an applicant who will apparently stop at nothing to exploit the loopholesof our current weak planning process.

A detached dwelling at this location has previously been refused and the refusal upheld at Appeal.

on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

detached dwelling in the earlier application. Following council refusal of that application the Planning Inspector in his Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/W/19/3231898 wrote: “The large open side garden of the appeal site also provides an important buffer of space between the built form of Whytes Close and the CA. The proposal would move this built form much closer to the CA and would remove a significant portion of green space. Whilst the appellant has indicated that significant additional tree planting will take place as part of the proposal, thesewill take many years to reach maturity. Furthermore, this would not overcome a fundamental concern over the further urbanising effect and removal of an important gap between the built form and the CA. Accordingly I find that the proposal would harm the setting of the CA.”Strangely the Planning History section of the Applicant’s Planning Statement document fails to mention the previous application for a detached property and the dismissal of the appeal against refusal.

3. Unacceptable loss of garden land. As noted above the Case Officer judged the application 20/02624/F for an attached dwelling failed to meet the requirements of DM21, so logically this application must similarly fail to meet those requirements.

4. Unsatisfactory application of the BTRS. We would also reiterate our previous objectionto the landscape plan on the grounds that the proposed planting scheme does not adequately compensate according to the BTRS for the mature garden trees which have previously been felled. The applicants admit in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment document that a number of trees were removed prior to the previous application being submitted. We note that although the document is dated December 2020 the Tree Schedule on page 14 was actually completed on 8th February 2019. The Planning Statement document states:“The proposed landscaping scheme will retain those features shown on the approved drawings for the attached dwelling. The large landscaped side garden will include the front and rear gardens, which will be planted with ten additional trees, a variety ofevergreen/flowering shrubs and grass…”We are not convinced that 10 trees can be satisfactorally located in the remaining garden space without their roots impacting on the historic wall or the new dwelling. Indeed one of the “trees” listed on the Landscape Plan is a jasmine, which can hardly be categorised as a tree even if it is the gardenia variety. We therefore consider that a contribution towards off-site mitigation tree planting should be provided and request that this is conditioned should permission be granted.

We are also concerned that the landscape plans do not show the location of a garden pond which was previously claimed to have been included. In section J: Ecology of the Case Officer’s Report on application 20/02624/F for the attached property it was stated: “Following previous Case Officer advice, a replacement pond has been included in the scheme for its wildlife benefits.” A pond was in fact shown in the plans for the original 2019 application but is absent from both later sets of landscape plans. This is a major oversight given the importance of biodiversity net gain being highlighted in national and local policies and we request that a revised plan be submitted showing the location of the pond.

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

Finally we request that were permission to be granted the same conditions are imposed as for application 20/0264/F with an additional condition that permitted development rights will be removed from the property to ensure that planning permission would be required for any further extensions in order to protect the character and appearance of the area.

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

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

on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

It is also possible that dampness may affect both walls if in the dark shadow of each other permanently, with attachment of lichens etc and high winds blowing down this ‘tunnel’ may cause disturbing sounds (this happens between my own property and the tall block of flats adjacent to it).

B Ten trees - as proposed for this site - in mitigation of what has been destroyed there by the applicant, seeking to create a ‘brownfield site’ to further his planning application – is far too great a number for the size of this garden. It is a joke in terms of arboriculture and garden planning and surely cannot be taken as a serious suggestion? It displays utter ignorance of

a) What tree roots can do to undermine and destabilize walls (the trees are shown on the plan in a line along the inside face of the old wall)

b) Each tree will create a pool of shade and an area round its base where other plants will struggle to survive or at the very least produce healthy foliage - the tree roots sap the goodness from the soil and render it dry and dusty - thus making a very large area of this garden difficult to cultivate or put down to grass. It is notable that the previous owners had very carefully positioned their trees nearer to the centre of the plot and had chosen evergreens that would not create circles of shade by virtue of their coned shape.

The applicant will have to provide ten trees in mitigation of damage done previously, but they will have to be provided elsewhere and three small garden species, carefully positioned so as not to destroy the sunlit areas of the garden, would be the maximum this plot should sustain.

Finally – Remarks in the Applicant’s Planning Statement are contentious and ignorant regarding the style of architecture in Whytes Close.

On the matter of ‘Site Layout’ on page 2 it is stated:

“Whytes Close was developed in 1959 and it could be inferred that none of the houses warrant any architectural merit at all”. Is this stated in justification of having a ‘free for all’ in future plans therefore, or that any design is therefore preferable or permissible, if added to the existing plan? On the contrary - as I have argued in previous opposition to this development overall – This small close represents the following in architectural terms and should retain its own integrity-

1 It is the only 1950’s development in Westbury village, as an example of post-war domestic architecture when funds were short and more homes were urgently needed

2 As such it represents an attempt to mirror former cottage styles but in a contemporary manner and setting, that would nestle into the existing village landscape of Medieval, Regency and Victorian cottages and arts and crafts style semi-detached houses of between the wars.

3 It is ‘of its time’ and thus an interesting contribution to the developing geography and history of the village and its overall microcosm of domestic styles

4 The horseshoe shaped close was fitted carefully into the former garden site of the early 19thC Whytes House (named after the family who built it) that stood at the top-bordering Passage Rd. The relevance of this is that care was taken to leave space between the end houses and the old walls to give symmetry at each side and to allow for a pleasant view along the old Turnpike Rd itself.

We regret that permission for development on that side of the Close has been given at all, but as it has been permitted under conditions-those should remain and the applicant held firmly to his commitments at every stage without sly or ‘accidental’ deviations and with scrutiny and enforcement by the Planning Authorities. H S LONG (Mrs)

on 2021-02-14   OBJECT

Objection to Planning Application ref 21/00018/F 1 Whytes Close, Bristol BS9 3HU

1. I write as owner/occupier of 5 Whytes Close.

2. I have had the benefit of reading some of the objections from other residents in Whytes Closeand wholeheartedly concur with their points. As you are aware this is yet another application forthis site, one of which has already been to Appeal with the State Planning Inspectorate in 2019.The application in that case was refused and reference should be made to some of the reasonsdetailed in that report.

3. This current proposal shows an overdeveloped site with an extra house squeezed into atapered plot with just 900mm at ground level between it and the adjacent house No. 1. At itseastern side it is very close to the historic stone boundary wall of Passage Road which may riskthe wall's structure (see points 4 and 5 in the statement from Rebecca Yirrell, No. 12 WhytesClose, as to previous refusal). This would also have a detrimental effect on the view from PassageRoad, the Conservation Area and Elmfield Gate Lodge (unlisted building of merit).

4. The over-development of the site at No. 1 Whytes Close is at odds with the rest of this cul desac. Whytes Close has a style, symmetry and spacing and when the applicant says 'All theproperties in the cul de sac are relatively densely packed with two storey extensions and link-detached garages adding to the closeness of properties to each other', this is simply not true. (Theaddition of a detached house was refused following an appeal by the developer in 2019. See

points 5-7 of the State Planning Inspector's site visit report on 8 October 2019). There is a senseof openness to the road.

5. The frontage to the proposed development is not in keeping with the scale of others' gardenslining Whytes Close on the right- and left-hand side of the road. Again this breaks up the symmetryof this small cul de sac, impacting on its street scene.

6. Whytes Close is made up of a single lane road and the addition of another household willimpact on the already limited parking in the road for people delivering services and visitors; in factit will result in a 35% loss of parking. It should be added that the road has several households withyoung families as well as it being used as a school drop off road, therefore additional traffic couldcreate a danger. The proposed access drive is very close to the entrance of the Close fromPassage Road and manoeuvring from the drive could be a hazard. Approaching the Close by aleft turn from Passage Road gives a clear run into the Close and little time to assess any activity atthis top end. (If approaching the Close from the right-hand side on Passage Road, vehicles haveto stop in the crown of the road to wait for oncoming traffic before turning in, giving time to judgeany activity at the top of the cul de sac).

7. I request that this application be refused.

on 2021-02-14   OBJECT

Objection to Planning Application: Ref 21/00018/F (1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU)

--------------------------------------

I am the owner and resident of 2 Whytes Close - the property adjacent to 1 Whytes Close.

I agree with my neighbours that the building of a detached house just 900mm from the existinghouse at 1 Whytes Close would represent a level of high density development that would be out ofcharacter with the existing housing layouts. The proposed building would also be detrimental tothe streetscape, being far too near to the ancient stone wall that is such a distinctive feature of theapproach to Westbury village and too close to the planned tree-planting on the site.

In their latest application, the developers have again ignored the safety problem of parking in thisnarrow single-track road by proposing a separate car access for the new property. The proposedaccess would be very close to the entrance to the Close from Passage Road, constituting ahazard for drivers turning left into the Close.

Parking in the Close for visitors or tradespeople is already limited, and parents dropping off andcollecting their children from school add to the pressures. The creation of new access to theproposed property would reduce the on-street space available for visitor parking and exacerbatethe problem - and could lead to dangerous parking at the top of the road.

For these reasons I object to application 21/00018/F relating to 1 Whytes Close, Westbury onTrym, BS9 3HU.

on 2021-02-12   OBJECT

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

I am the owner and resident of 4 Whytes Close.I am writing to object to the latest proposal for development of 1 Whytes close. I have reviewed allother objections from residents and can confirm that I wholeheartedly agree with the points made.In summary I believe:

1. The proposed plans would be an over-development of the plot for a number of reasons;a. The additional detached house would be closer to the Passage Road boundary wall than that ofthe house opposite, which would be incongruent to the rest of the close.b. As this property is detached from the current dwelling, it would be closer than the previouslyproposed dwelling, with just a 0.9 meter wide gap between the two properties making it muchcloser to the historic stone wall and Elmfield lodge gate which is identified as Unlisted Building ofMerit and the Westbury-on-Trym Conservation area. This was one of the key reasons for yourteam reusing permission previously. The objection from 12 Whytes close clarifies this in moredetail in points 3 and 4 of their objection.c. The 900mm spacing is not in keeping with the rest of Whytes close properties despite theattempts in the application to convince otherwise. I am sure you will see this for yourself oninspection of the site. Therefore, I think it will create a cramped plot which is not in keeping withthe rest of the cul de sac.

2. The result of this planning being granted would lead to significant traffic and parking issues:a. It would result in the loss of a legal parking space on the road which is a reduction of 35% forthe road.

b. It would increase the number of cars in the close with a new 4-bedroom residence. Not onlybecause of residents themselves potentially having multiple cars but also guests, making point 1even more pertinent.c. The extended driveway access and the increase in cars using it would cause increased dangerto children walking to school daily (there are currently 7 children residing in Whytes close which is30% of the residents).

3. Whilst I appreciate it is not normal practice to consider the wellbeing of residents in thesematters, we are in unprecedented times. Please do consider the stress and upset this has causeall the residents on the close.a. The developer has not shown any consideration to the residents and continues to proposedevelopments that will not suit the environment but clearly demonstrate his acquisitive intentions.b. During a time when we have all been forced to stay in our houses and the view from our homehas been more important than ever for our mental well being. There are several elderly peopleliving on the road who have been shielding. The developer who has not been living at the propertyhas continued to destroy a previously well cared for garden at 1 Whytes Close containing maturetrees and has used the area as rubbish tip for building materials and items from his other projects.Residents have witnessed rubbish being brought to the site and discarded there by the developerincluding glass and toilets. This only highlights the developers lack of consideration towards ourcommunity and I believe any permission that is granted would see the situation worsen.

on 2021-02-12   OBJECT

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

My wife and I live and own 11 Whytes Close, adjacent to No.1 and its grounds on which thisdevelopment is proposed.

We strongly object to this application and are bemused why such a Plan has been submitted. Asimilar planning proposal was applied for in April 2019 (19/0762/F0 and was refused by theCouncil, this was then sent to Appeal by the Developer and once again refused. What, if anything,has changed to allow such a development to be submitted for Planning Approval once again.

We have had the benefit of reading the objection letters from other residents and so, as not towrite a complete repetitive letter, we wholly support everything they have stated. Our mainconcern is the 900mm gap between the old and new properties, which could result in the removalof the existing side windows at No.1, unless the occupants like a solid brick wall view.

Again the new build would be at least 1.2m closer to the old boundary wall causing a structural riskto a very old, defining feature of Passage Road and entry into Westbury Village, on the previousapplication this was a major reason why the plan for a detached property was refused.

For these reasons we very strongly object to the approval of this development. We would alsostate that we are extremely unhappy that not one resident received a written lettter regarding thisnew proposal, which, as far as we are aware, should have been done as a matter of courtesy.

Yours sincerely,

David and Ann Barnes

on 2021-02-12   OBJECT

Objection to Planning Application 21/00018/F8 Whytes CloseWestbury on TrymBristolBS9 3HU

12/2/21Dear Mr Rodzaj,

I live at and own 8 Whytes Close. I have read the objections to this proposal submitted so far and Iagree with the points raised. I wish further to emphasise the following issues.

Firstly, the planned development is too close to the boundary wall which could render the wallunstable and dangerous for pedestrians.

Secondly, the proposed detached house constitutes overdevelopment of the plot. It does not havea garage and will increase parking and traffic problems in Whytes Close.

Thirdly, the planned development substantially decreases the green space in Whytes Close whichhas already been compromised by the removal of trees and the depositing of rubbish on the site.

Yours sincerely,

Judith Graham

on 2021-02-11   OBJECT

Tony Graham8 Whytes CloseWestbury-on-TrymBristolBS9 3HU

10 February 2021

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

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

Objection to Planning Application, 1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU, ref 21/00018/F

I live at and own 8 Whytes Close and wish to object to this planning application ref 21/00018/F. Inthis latest application, the developer proposes to build a detached house to the east of the existingdetached house, with just 900mm spacing between the houses and moreover with that 900mm

spacing occurring right up to the roof ridge height level. This is an unacceptable spacing,completely inappropriate and incongruent to the rest of Whytes Close and highly detrimental to theexisting street. Additionally, the proposed house would also be too close to the ancient stone wallon the eastern boundary of the site. It harms the view from Passage Road, the Conservation Area,and Elmfield Gate Lodge (which is identified as an unlisted building of merit).

Furthermore, the developer has produced reports containing misleading information about theexisting houses in Whytes Close and the surrounding area in an attempt to justify proposals forover-development and out-of-character dwellings. Specifically, the building dates were incorrectand the development style of Whytes Close was said to be nothing special whereas in fact it doeshave a consistent early 1960's style, of well-spaced houses which has remained mainly intact.This is borne out in points 5-7 of the state planning Inspectorate's site visit report of 8th October2019. At that time the planning inspector, S. Shapland, dismissed an appeal by the developerproposing 1 additional dwelling house. The appeal was after a refusal for planning by the councilafter 12 objections and a comment referring to traffic and parking concerns at the top of the close.

This new proposal does not include the single storey side element in the 2019 proposal. Even so,most of the remaining points in the planning inspector's report remain valid. These mainly concernthe proximity to an unlisted building of merit, Elmfield Gate Lodge, and the increased massing ofmodern buildings nearby.

The developer has not shown any consideration to the local residents and continues to proposedevelopments that will not suit the environment but clearly demonstrate his acquisitive intentions.Ahead of submitting his first proposal, the developer destroyed the previously well cared forgarden at 1 Whytes Close containing mature trees, (one having a trunk diameter of fully 50cm)exposing the east gable of the property. The developer then misleadingly claimed that there wereno trees in the garden when submitting an application for two detached houses in addition to theexisting house in their planning application of 18th December 2018. Whilst the developer is atliberty to destroy the garden of his property, this behavior is wholly disingenuous. Indeed, duringthe two years that the developer has owned but not occupied 1 Whytes Close, the garden hasbeen destroyed and during the last 12 months, used as a rubbish tip for building materials anditems from his other projects. Residents have witnessed rubbish being brought to the site anddiscarded there by the developer. The garden wall has recently been partially demolished andvarious fences and screens erected erratically (and some fallen down) about the site. As well asbeing an eyesore, I would like to draw attention to the sheets of glass left amongst this rubbishwhich are a danger to any person or animal on the unprotected site.

There are other issues to note such as the traffic concerns including parking, the stability of the oldstone wall close to the proposed building and also the symmetry of the new development with theexisting properties.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Graham

on 2021-02-10   OBJECT

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

Objection to Planning Application, 1 Whytes Close, Bristol, BS9 3HU, ref 21/00018/F

1. I live at and co-own 12 Whytes Close, which is the end-of-street house directly opposite the siteof the proposed new development. I object strongly to this application.

2. The proposed development involves constructing the new house that has planning permissionas a semi-detached house grafted onto the existing 1 Whytes Close under reference 20/02624/F,but constructing it as a detached house to the east of the existing detached house with just900mm spacing between the houses. That 900mm spacing is a main reason for my objection:900mm is a tiny spacing, appropriate only in high density locations in cities. In this location it wouldbe fundamentally inappropriate, strikingly inconsistent with the rest of Whytes Close, andprofoundly detrimental to the street scene. The statement in the planning application "All theproperties in the cul-de-sac are relatively densely packed with two storey extensions and link-detached garages adding to the closeness of properties to each other" is simply not true and is notany justification for a 900mm gap between two full height walls and roofs, as any inspection ofWhytes Close will reveal.

3. The proposed new house will be too close to the ancient stone wall on the eastern boundary ofthe site. The proposal is that a 900mm gap is left between the old and new houses, which means,when a 300mm cavity wall is added to the west elevation of the house, that the east elevation willbe 1.2m closer to the eastern site boundary than the development agreed under reference

20/02624/F. Although the planning statement refers to a 8.2m gap between the stone wall and thenew house, that dimension is taken at the front elevation of the house; the site is so very taperedthat at the rear elevation of the house, which is the critical point that impacts the view fromPassage Road, the gap will be just 4.8m. That is too close: it harms the view from Passage Road,the Conservation Area, and Elmfield Gate Lodge (which is identified as an unlisted building ofmerit), and it would be a further erosion of the guideline 10m gap that has been required in otherplanning applications (eg my own 10/05402/H).

4. This application therefore breaches the principles set out in both the Council's refusal ofApplication 19/01762/F to build a detached dwelling on this site, and the Appeal Inspector'sdismissal of this applicant's appeal against that refusal. You will be familiar with these priordecisions but for easy reference I would point out that the whole of the "Reasons" section in theCouncil's 03/06/2020 refusal of 19/01762/F deals with this aspect, as do paragraphs 10-15 of theAppeal Inspector's 09/12/2019 decision.

5. There is therefore a combination of effects with this application that has not existed with theearlier applications for this site: first, the new house is too close to the eastern boundary wall in away that harms the street scene viewed both from Passage Road and from Whytes Close itself,and second there is a proposed gap between the new and existing houses that is far too small at900mm, all the way up to the roof ridge, which is itself a profound harm to the street scene andcharacter of Whytes Close.

6. It is easy to say that moving something by only 1.2m is insignificant. But that argument cannotautomatically hold, because it if were true another 1.2m movement could be made, and thenanother 1.2m. So the line has to be drawn somewhere. I respectfully say that it should be drawnwhere you have already drawn it, namely at the position in application 20/02624/F, and that theadditional encroachment into the open space requested in this new application 21/00018/F shouldnot be permitted (nor should the ugly 900mm full height gap). As you know, application20/02624/F met with much deep-felt objection from very many people and it followed priorapplications that had been withdrawn, refused, and refused on appeal. I respectfully say thereforethat the development allowed in 20/02624/F must be taken to be the limit for positioning the eastelevation, and that no further eastward movement of the east elevation should be permitted.

7. As you know, in my objections to previous planning applications by this applicant I have had topoint out a number of unsupportable, and in my view disingenuous, statements made by or onbehalf of this applicant. Unfortunately this pattern continues. The 3rd paragraph of the planningstatement says this:

"Whilst the applicant is delighted to have received planning permission for a new 4 bedroomdwelling attached to No.1 Whytes Close, he would prefer to live in a detached property. With thisin mind he is proposing to move the attached dwelling 900mm away from the original housemaking it detached."

The applicant is a limited company so it can't "prefer to live" anywhere, but assuming that the"applicant" in this paragraph means the 100% shareholder of that limited company then thisparagraph is very disingenuous. That individual has no intention to live in this house, as isexpressly shown by the answer to question 4(c) of the CIL documentation included in thisapplication. I realise that this does not impact the street scene points made above, but it is notsatisfactory for applicants to submit misleading statements.

8. I have had the benefit of reading the objection letter submitted by Mr and Mrs Vaughan of 7Whytes close and I wholly agree with their comments on parking.

********

For all the reasons above I respectfully object to application ref 21/00018/F relating to 1 WhytesClose, Westbury on Trym, BS9 3HU.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Yirrell

on 2021-02-06   OBJECT

Ref: New development, Application Ref. 21/00018/F, 1 Whytes Close, BS9 3HU,"Construction of a new two storey four bedroom detached dwelling with on site parking andassociated works"

Dear Mr Rodzaj,

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

We object to the proposed development regarding the property at 1 Whytes Close and request theplans be rejected in their current form. This is primarily for the two reasons that we objected to theearlier attached dwelling plan for this site, reference 20/02624/F of June 2020, but with SEVERALADDITIONAL CONCERNS, which we have highlighted in CAPITALS in this text. These concernsare all related to the fact that this is a DETACHED property, 0.9m CLOSER to the plotBOUNDARY than the previous, attached, property proposal.

Firstly, we consider that the proposed plans would be an over-development of the plot. Theadditional house would be closer to the Passage Road boundary wall than that of the houseopposite, including its extension, 12 Whytes Close, thus being incompatible with the opencharacter of the two corner sites. Also, it would therefore be nearer to Elmfield Gate Lodge, whichis identified as an Unlisted Building of Merit and the Westbury-on-Trym Conservation Area.FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD BE CLOSER THAN THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ATTACHEDDWELLING. Within Whytes Close itself, this development does not have a garden that would bein-keeping with the scale of the other gardens, particularly the front gardens that are adjacent andopposite to it, lining the sides of the Close: Consequently, it would not result in a coherent street

scene. Furthermore, the proposal shows a driveway, which will remove a legal space for on-roadparking in Whytes Close, alongside adding a new household to the Close, so causing anadditional demand on the already limited parking opportunities for any visitors to the Close and thenearby area. Finally, we note that as the DETACHED dwelling is in-line with the current property at1 Whytes Close, it will visually alter the street scene in a manner that is different to that at 12Whytes Close, which has a set-back extension. Thus resulting in a lack of consistency with thefrontage visible along the Close and representing an over-development of the site.

Secondly, we consider that the proposed plans for this site do not overcome the issues related tobuilding close to the old stone boundary wall, as raised in previous plans that the Council refusedpermission to build. The plans indicate that the new dwelling would be near to the wall andbuilding this close would seem to present a structural risk to the wall, which is a visually definingfeature of Passage Road. FURTHERMORE, AS THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY IS DETACHEDFROM THE CURRENT DWELLING NEXT TO IT AND SO HAS A PATHWAY APPROXIMATELY0.9-METRE-WIDE BORDERING IT, IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH CLOSER TO THE OLD STONEWALL THAN THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ATTACHED DWELLING. Also, the roof of the newproperty is highly likely to be visible from a number of nearby dwellings and streets and would alterthe view on approach to the village. Whilst there are plans to plant new trees to restore thegarden, in some measure, to that of the previous mature and established plant-scheme, we areconcerned that if the dwelling is built, not enough space will in fact be left for such trees to growwithout affecting the structural integrity of the stone wall. We very much welcome the plantingscheme in principle and hope that some mechanism for ensuring its viability will be put in place,whatever the outcome of this planning application.

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

Yours sincerely,

Kathryn and Robert Vaughan