Application Details

Reference 21/03386/X
Address Woodlands Church Road Sneyd Park Bristol BS9 1JT  
Street View
Proposal Application for the variation of condition No. 10 (List of approved plans) following grant of planning application 17/05145/F for the construction of three storey four bedroom house.
Validated 21-06-21
Type Variation/Deletion of a Condition
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 09-03-22
Standard Consultation Expiry 03-08-21
Determination Deadline 16-08-21
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 04-07-22
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 25    Total: 25
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

It is very disappointing to read this kind of Application. "In the United Kingdom, the term Conservation Area almost always applies to an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character of which is considered worthy of preservation or enhancement" This application goes against the whole ethos of a Conservation Area.
The Applicant, upon becoming the new owner, has applied to vary the existing Application 17/05145/F, presumably having knowledge of the existing planning application, its consent and the conditions; and now requests to do everything possible to change that application ignoring the fact that it is in a Conservation Area.
I'll not comment on the aesthetics, rather leave that to the neighbours who risk see their amenity being spoiled should these variations be permitted.
I just want to comment upon the effect this will have on the trees.
Trees and shrubs on the site will be lost to facilitate the development. This was noted in the Application 17/05145 and following upon a number of discussions and renewed plans, undertakings were finally decided upon with the LPAs Tree Officer. He wrote:
"The proposed reprovision of trees on site accords with the Local Planning Authority's tree replacement policies to replacement those trees lost to facilitate the development" having reported "The proposals involve the retention of 8 trees, but the loss of 20 trees and this would create a gap between the existing buildings, particularly with the loss of the understory vegetation. The proposals included low level planting at the front of the site; this must be increased to block the potential open space......I therefore consider that BTRS calculations are required for trees T9, T11, T16, T19, T20, T21, T22, T26, T27 which equates to 25 replacement trees or a financial contribution of 25 X £765 = £19,125 pro rata dependant on the number of replacement trees on site. Replacement trees have been identified with the design and access statement; however, no formal landscape plan has been provided at this stage to show a robust mitigation for tree loss on site. We require a high-quality landscape plan containing tree location, species, planting stock size (Minimum 12-14cm Girth) & maintenance schedule for watering and aftercare to ensure establishment of newly planted trees. .........This needs to be provided prior to consent as a Unilateral Undertaking needs to be agreed for tree not replaced on site."
The report went on:
"A landscape plan and tree pit details were submitted by the applicant. Outlining that 19 replacement trees would be provided on-site. In response to the additional information submitted, the Officer stated no objections to the proposals and requested that conditions are attached to any relating to the protection of trees during construction and arboricultural supervision. A Unilateral Undertaking should be agreed between the Council and the applicant to ensure the offsite planting of six trees is funded and appropriately located."
"Suitable specimen trees will be planted within the site following completion of the proposed new dwelling within the matrix of a detailed landscaping scheme. It will not be feasible to plant the total number of required replacement trees so locations will be identified elsewhere through liaison with Bristol City Council Tree Officers."

This new Application (21/03386/X) is very dismissive of the negotiations and conditions about trees that were part of 17/05145/F, merely saying, on page 13 of the MMA, "TREES There is no further encroachment on the root protection zone compared to the approved design. Since the planning application T14 & T15 have been lawfully felled. Seven proposed trees have been omitted. These will need to be planted off site instead."
If I am reading the Conditions and AO's reporting of 17/05145 correctly (there have been variations so it is not straightforward) then for that Application there were to be 25 replacement trees provided by the Applicant, 19 on site and 6 off site. This latest iteration states that if the proposed development envisaged in this Application goes ahead (21/03386), there will not remain space for 7 of the trees that were proposed to be planted on site actually to be planted on the site. This then means that the new off-site planting requirement becomes 6 (from 17/05145) and 7 (moved off site by 21/03386) = 13 trees. I'd hate for the figure of 7 from this Application to become the new total! Please remember the 6 off site plantings still required from 17/05145. The total off-site becomes 13.
Examination of the BCC Tree Sponsorship mapping of available tree sponsorship/tree replacement sites shows 11 sites within a mile of the development. As many of the replacement trees as possible should be planted as close as possible to the development site. In 2012 the residents of the area had a 2-year debate with the University of Bristol about where replacement trees should be planted when trees had been lost from a Conservation Area. The final decision was that trees lost from a Conservation Area should where at all possible be planted within the Conservation Area to maintain the characteristics of a Conservation Area.
If this application for an enlarged house goes ahead please add together the two off-site tree provision requirements in order to provide sufficient mitigation (eventually) for the trees lost to development.

Public Comments

on 2022-04-01   OBJECT

The original planning shows stairs on the Woodland side of the property, allowing access to the lower areas. The new proposals show the stairs changed into a patio area which would become a social area overlooking the neighbours and affecting their privacy. Increased windows overlooking Woodlands also intrude on the neighbours privacy and potentially their sound pollution, particularly in the summer months. The original planning showed the replacement of trees on the site and this must be upheld to maintain the conservation and character of Church Road and Sneyd Park. The outside space must be kept as the original footprint to retain the ambiance to the listed buildings on each side of the development. This new planning revision opposes almost every part of the 2017 plans agreed and I ask the Planning officer to disallow all the proposed changes.

on 2022-03-30   OBJECT

I am writing to object to this revised planning application.

As the owner of Flat 4 Woodlands, my property is directly adjacent to the site of the proposeddwelling.

As I stated in my previous objection to this development in 2017, the hallway and both bedroomsin my property have large windows with an outlook over the proposed development site. Theproposed house will overshadow and consider considerable loss of light to my home, and thesubmitted plans to increase the size of the property will make this worse.

My original statements in regards to the historic buildings flanking this site and its position within aconservation area remain.The proposed development does not respect the traditional forms characteristic of this area, andthe surrounding Victorian listed buildings.The suggestion of off site planting of trees to replace those planned to be removed does not fulfilthe requirement to maintain the conservation area.

The current owners of the plot of land related to this proposal were fully aware of the permissionsgranted prior to purchasing, which contained restrictions respecting the sensitivity and significanceof the area and surrounding properties.Yet they are endeavouring to revise those plans, and their proposal reintroduces those aspectspreviously rejected by the planning committee after they had received careful consideration.I would ask that that same level of scrutiny and care should be taken in considering these revisedplans, which I believe should also lead to their rejection.

on 2022-03-30   OBJECT

Thank you for notification of 21/03386/X.

Having reviewed it I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my unequivocal objections to the latestsubmitted revision and ask those responsible for deciding the fate of the application and those onwhom it has impact, to once again, as previously reject it for the reasons outlined below.

The new developer purchased the land in June 2021 with very specific and sensitive planningpermission for the development from 29th June 2018 (Ref. No: 17/05145/F). This appropriatelyand carefully followed the conservation area and listed buildings restrictions of the site.

This sensitivity includes:

the top floor being an uninhabited garage space

size restrictions to yield a building as in-keeping and unintrusive to its immediate surroundings asfeasible, and sympathetic to its juxtaposition with an historic, listed building

protecting the privacy of the existing neighbours, so far as possible

replanting of trees on the site

This permission was accepted by the developer at purchase and this third application is anattempt at making changes to overturn the original restrictions which respected those sensitivities.

The attempted attrition through multiple applications with recurrent, synonomous proposedvariance, pays no heed to prior concerns and objections and disrespects not only the principles ofthe original permission but also the time and engagement of those who have only recently rejectedthe other applications.

I share the concerns of my neighbours, supported by myriad public comments on the proposals,with respect to the entirely avoidable negative impact on the neighbourhood, principally:

the change in building materials

bypassing the required replanting of trees

considerable size change and change in floor usage- drastically increasing the loss of privacy of many of the surrounding neighbours- magnifying it from a four bedroom to a six bedroom house, squeezed between historicneighbouring buildings on a site barely adequate for any development

Each of these proposed changes runs counter to the original developers very own "HeritageDesign and Access Statement 2017" Part 1,2 & 3 submitted by the original developer on 15thSeptember 2017, which was compiled after lengthy pre application discussion with the caseofficer, conservation officer and arboricultural officer.

There have been no changes in the principles underlying the previously respected sensitivities,including conservation, arboricultural and neighbourhood considerations.I therefore respectfully hope we can rely on the planning committee to draw the same appropriateconclusions they have previously and reject this latest application.

on 2022-03-28   OBJECT

Please note that I completely endorse the objections put forward by the residents ofNumber 7 woodlandsThis planning application rides rufshod over planing rules and is almost entirely changed from theprevious successful planning application. It fails to comply with planning regulations and has noregard to the negative impact of its surroundings or the negative impact on wild life or vegetationor trees. To allow this application in its current form would set a dangerous precedent for futureapplications.

on 2022-03-26   OBJECT

There are a number of significant issues within this planning application that will impacton the neighbourhood, and this includes:- change building materials- attempt to bypass the required replanting of trees on the site- extensive size changes which will drastically increase overlooking into many of the surroundingneighbours along with a complete over development of the site.

Because of the sensitivity of the area, the original planning permission was granted with a numberof restrictions (top floor uninhabited, size/ windows taking into account privacy to neighbours, sizedetermined so that the building would be as discreet as possible and blended as much as possiblein the existing setting).

This new application goes right against these principles, and we would request that this applicationbe rejected and the original planning permission kept unchanged.

on 2022-03-26   OBJECT

I support John Goulandris and Steve Small and many other neighbours in theirobjections to this revised planning application. The original permission was carefully considered bythe committee with learned and professional input from all concerned. The amended applicationseeks to fundamentally amend the conditions by increasing its size, removing responsibility ofreplanting trees, increasing windows and denying privacy to neighbours and changing buildingmaterials.The new owners knew what permission was given when they purchased the land so they shouldget one and complete the build complying with that permission.We understand this is the third or fourth attempt at revisions and we request that the committeeremain strong and united in their determination to deny this new application.

on 2022-03-26   OBJECT

I have objected this application before in 2017, it is still ongoing. A product like thisbetween 2 historical properties is unsuitable, the 2 anointing houses have ancient walls. Whichmight well be damaged allowing either one to collapse. The entrance is on a well used road, withbuses going in both directions every 20 minutes,Getting in or out is difficult and could cause anaccident, guest parking would be non existent - apart from on this busy road. I strongly submit thatthis development should not be approved and that the land should be returned back to nature.Yours, AN Hosegood

on 2022-03-24   OBJECT

• Having read the revised plans, it appears the developer has yetagain (for the 3rd time) refused to acknowledge virtually all of

the objections put forward previously by many concerned

parties.

• The developer despite numerous objections keeps submittingalmost identical massing changes with each revision and seems

to be relying on a bulldozer approach to forcing his massing

changes through hoping to either swamp or exhaust both the

neighbours and planning department into submission.

• The applicant seems to have a complete disregard to the factthat the land was purchased with agreed planning, which

carefully followed the conservation area and listed buildings

restrictions of this sensitive site, the applicant should have spent

more time considering this before purchasing the land.

• It took many years for the original planning consent in 2017 tobe granted due to the sensitivity of the site, the previous caveats

such as the top floor being an uninhabited garage space and the

size restrictions were deliberately placed on the building so it

created a carefully considered and well balanced building that

blended as discreetly as possible into it’s surroundings, alongwith providing as much privacy as possible to all of the existing

neighbours, the developer is now trying to circumvent all of the

original restrictions which were never intended to be changed.

• We would kindly ask that the planning officers reviewing thislatest revision refer to the “Heritage Design and AccessStatement 2017” Part 1,2 & 3 submitted by the originaldeveloper on 15th September 2017. This was complied after an

extensive pre application planning discussion with the case

officer, conservation officer and arboricultural officer.

• It clearly lays out all the reasoning behind all of theneighbours objections to the latest revised plans and why

they were not granted in the approved design in 2017.

• It provides explanations for the reduced size of thebuilding, the window design on each floor, the space from

each neighbour and the uninhabited space on the top

floor. This new planning revision contradicts virtually

every part of the developers very own Heritage Design

and Access Statement. Nothing has changed with the site

since 2017, everything that was decided with the case

officer, conservation officer and arboricultural officer still

holds true and I would ask that the planning department

take the same stance as they did in 2017 and disallow all

of the proposed changes.

• For ease we have attached some relevant pages from the‘Heritage Design and Access Statement’ below andcircled in red specific areas of interest.

Overall objection - overview and why the latest revisions should be denied

EXTRACT FROM DEVELOPERS “HERITAGE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 2017”

EXTRACT FROM DEVELOPERS “HERITAGE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 2017”

EXTRACT FROM DEVELOPERS “HERITAGE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 2017”

EXTRACT FROM DEVELOPERS “HERITAGE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 2017”

EXTRACT FROM DEVELOPERS “HERITAGE DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 2017”

• In an attempt to help show the sheer vastness of the developersmassing changes as a whole compared to the approved planning of

2017 we have put together an artist impression between the two

designs, please see Figure 1 & 2 below. Clicking between these two

images shows the extent of the proposed massing increase.

FIGURE 1: APPROVED DESIGN 2017

FIGURE 2: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MARCH 2022

AB

C

D

Our primary areas of concern are listed below from A – E, to help show these areas we have overlaid an image of the approved plans from 2017 (Yellow) and proposed amendments in Feb 2022 (Blue)

Size increase to the

side on the middle

floor and overlooking

balcony with staircase

brought forward.

2 x additional windows

facing Woodlands

Size increase of top

floor, conversion of

garage into bedrooms

& window design.

change

Size increase to

middle floor &

conversion of step

area into extra patio

and raising of middle

floor level creating a

substantial increase in

the size of the main

outside patio area.

Windows in pool area

{A}

{B}

{C}

{D}

{E}

E

Key

Approved 2017

Proposed 2022

In the proposed increased massing on the ‘REVISED_PROPOSED_SIDEELEVATION 3145939’ (026-P-022 Revision 07) the stairs and railings have comefurther forward and the external stairs down to the garden have been removed and

replaced with an entertaining space/patio. We object to this for a number of

reasons.

- We object to the expansion of the middle floor on the side as it will move forward

towards our courtyard, front entrance and kitchen. This will create overlooking

into our courtyard, our kitchen and our glass classed front door and into the back

garden creating a substantial loss of privacy.

- The extended balcony above the staircase (shown in the top right picture) being

at a highly elevated position on the top floor is now directly facing our young

daughter’s bedroom and would allow anyone to look straight into her bedroom. Italso allows direct line of site into Woodlands Flat 4 and Flat 8’s bedrooms andliving rooms.

Objection Area A: Size increase to the side on the middle floor and overlooking balcony with staircase brought

forward.

View into woodlands, flat 7 entrance and hallViews into Woodlands windows, Flat 7, Flat 4 and Flat 8

- On the middle floor the lower external staircase to the garden has been removed

and a new large patio/entertaining space has been added directly outside our

kitchen window and back garden.

- As stated in the ‘Heritage Design and Access Statement’ page 25 this area is“Where the boundary between the two properties is at its most open” and theapproved design was adapted to give space between the two properties, this is

not the case in the new design.

- Direct quote from the 2017 approved ‘Heritage Design and Access Statement –page 21 - “Further to the pre application advice, the footprint of the building hasbeen reduced and re shaped to make more space around the Woodland’s turret.”- This has been completely disregarded in the newly submitted plans.

Objection Area A Continued: Removal of lower external staircase down to garden and change to patio area

APPROVED DESIGN 2017 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MARCH 2022

40.00m

2

7 1

3

4

5

2

2

4

6

Blue dashed line denotesoutline of approved scheme.

88

9

9

7

2

2

2

General Notes

DO NOT SCALE. All dimensions must be checked on site, errors are to be reported.

All illustrated material is subject to copyright. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all rights to use this document are subject to payment of all Architect's charges. This document may only be used for the express purpose and project for which it has been created and delivered, as notified in writing by the Architect. This document may not be otherwise used or copied. Any unauthorised use of this document is at the user's sole risk and without limiting the Architect's rights the user releases and indemnifies the Architect from and against all loss so arising.

Contractors must ensure that cross referenced drawings and specifications noted on these drawings are checked on a regular basis to ensure that the latest revisions are used.

Title

Project

Scale

Status

Drawing Number Revision

Proposed elevation

Church Road

026-P-022

1:50@ A1 1:100@ A3

Planning

07

0 4m

Scale 1:100 @ A3

2m1m

1:100 @ A3Proposed south west elevation 01

DateIssue Record ChkBy

03 Planning issue 15.09.2017AGBP

04 Minor Material Amendment 18.06.2021AGBP

05 Annotations amended 02.12.2021AGBP

06 Building lines adjusted 03.12.2021AGBP

07 MMA revision 10.02.2022AGBP

Notes

1.2.

3.4.

5.6.

7.8.

9.

Black metal staircaseTop bed Stoke Ground Bath

Stone large format Ashlar cladding

Glass balustradeTop bed Stoke Ground Split-faced Bath Stone

Black metal balustrade/handrailsTimber cladding

Alu framed triple glazingObscure frosted glass

Painted render wall

Studio D25-27 Stokes CroftBristol BS1 3PYT: 0117 2800128 / 07974 262927www.gamblesarchitects.co.uk

GAMBLES ARCHITECTS

B

Additional windows have been added in the ‘REVISED_PROPOSED_SIDE_ELEVATION-3145939’ (026-P-022 revision 07) annotatedas number 8 on the plan, this will allow direct views into Woodlands glass fronted door, kitchen, daughter’s bedroom and courtyard.

Also shown are Flat 4’s and Flat 8’s bedroom and living room windows which will have their privacy heavily affected by the developerstwo extra windows.

Objection Area B: Window design on the middle floor facing Woodlands windows.

Views into Woodlands, Flat 7, Flat 4 and Flat 8

Perhaps one of the biggest changes is

an attempt to change the top-level

garage into two bedrooms; the size of

the top floor has also increased

considerably.

Additionally it has new large floor to

ceiling windows allowing unrestricted

views into the garden (amenity space) of

Flat 7 and 2 Church Road at a highly

elevated position, please see the picture

on the right.

This is a significant change compared to

a smaller non-living space garage which

would have spent most of its time empty.

There also appears to be potential

access out onto the wildflower roof

allowing even greater loss of privacy, if

this top level is converted into bedrooms,

then the wildflower area has the potential

to be exploited in some format outside of

its original purpose.

Again, the developer was previously

instructed that this top level was only

ever intended to be used as a non-living

space due to its elevated position over

the surrounding properties and its affect

on privacy and yet this previous condition

seems to have been completely ignored

in the proposed amendments.

Objection Area C: Size increase of top floor, conversion of top floor garage to two bedrooms & window design.

The pictures on the right show another

angle of view from the rear of the 3

properties and how the change in window

design and change of use from a garage

into bedrooms will heavily impact the

privacy of 2 Church Road and Woodlands

4 Church Road

Additionally the change from a garage into

2 extra bedrooms alters the property from

a 4-bed into a 6-bed property which was

never approved.

This massing expansion will bring the

whole top floor forward allowing it to loom

over Woodlands Flat 7’s courtyard andkitchen in a very imposing manner.

This is firstly an overdevelopment of the

site and secondly greatly impacts the

privacy of both neighbours.

APPROVED DESIGN 2017

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MARCH 2022

Uninhabited

Garage

Objection Area C: Size increase of top floor, conversion of garage to bedrooms & window design.

The picture above right shows an increase in the middle floor’s outside patio area (shown by all the extra people). There are also massingchanges and an increase in floor height above Woodlands bringing the whole development much closer to the Woodlands property and

turret, this is discussed in the Heritage Access Statement – Planning Principles page 21, where the developer was instructed to reduce thefootprint and move the building away from the turret, but this now appears to have been ignored and the increased massing has been

resubmitted.

With the developer removing the steps and raising the ground height this has allowed a huge increase in the size of the outside patio area

allowing occupants to stand literally a few feet away from our kitchen, garden and main outdoor living space. This is a huge contrast

compared to the approved plans where the developers middle and lower floor naturally slopped away below ground level preventing any

overcrowding or privacy loss. Please see page 25 of the Heritage and Design Statement which covers this.

Objection Area D: Size increase to middle floor & conversion of step area into extra patio and raising of middle floor

level creating a huge increase in the size of the main outside entertaining patio area.

The pictures on the right show another viewing

angle of how the revised changes will affect the

privacy in context to Woodlands Flat 7 and 2

Church Road, viewed from the back of all 3

properties.

The middle floor which is the main living and

entertainment area has another increase in floor

height above Woodlands ground level allowing

further visual intrusion.

Increased size of middle floor and extension of

patio area puts the new dwellings main living

/entertaining space much closer to the turret,

kitchen and garden of Flat 7.

Objection Area D: Size increase to middle floor & conversion of step area into extra patio and raising of middle floor

level creating a huge increase in the size of the main outside entertaining patio area.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MARCH 2022

APPROVED DESIGN 2017

To help show how overzealous the most recent plans are, I have overlaid the declined plans below

from 2017 with a red dotted line, the final approved plans from 2017 in yellow and the new revision

from 2022 shown in blue; which is significantly bigger then anything ever submitted before.

I would very much appreciate if the above objections could be taken into consideration, I feel our objections

raise serious concerns regarding privacy as well as making sure the development adheres to all the

previous stipulations originally agreed too by all official parties, allowing it to blend as delicately as possible

into its surroundings.

If possible, could a site visit please be arranged with a planning officer, so all our concerns can be clearly

visualised, and the privacy ramifications taken into account.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Singeon and Kat Daer

Flat 7

Woodlands

4 Church Road

on 2022-03-11   OBJECT

It is noted that the Bristol City Council planning site was inaccessible on the deadlinedate for neighbours' consultation of 9th March 2022 and is now only open again today, the 11thMarch.

It is disappointing to note that none of the objections submitted in our comments of 4th Januaryhave been addressed. Indeed, the revised application now under consideration has accentuatedsome of these.

We remain extremely concerned about the additional loss of light in the rooms facing thedevelopment in our lower ground floor, but most specifically the bedroom. We contend that theproposed further extension to the building works will likely make this room effectivelyuninhabitable, and no attempt to allay this concern has been made.

Our concern about the proposed use of materials being out of keeping with the gravitas of the twoneighbouring properties has similarly not been addressed.

The proposal to use what was originally approved as a garage now as bedroom accommodationhas further consequences on our privacy. Not only does the proposed expanded developmentoverlook our conservatory, the addition of windows on this level adds an extra layer of intrusion.

Our general concerns on the over development of the plot also remain - this revised submissionappears to be an inappropriate attempt to squeeze the maximum out of a confined plot,presumably for predominantly commercial reasons of profit but with little regard to the impact onthe neighbouring properties.

David & Michele Pople

on 2022-02-26   OBJECT

As Chair of the Sneyd Park Residents' Association (SPRA) I wish to fully object to thisplanning application, again. Little has changed from revised application and would ask planning torefuse the application for the following reasons :-1. Per SPRA's objection 15th August 2021.2. Per detailed objection from Flat 7 Woodland 10th January 2022.3. The applicant does not seem to understand land was purchased with agreed planning, whichwas required to follow conservation area / surrounding listed buildings restrictions. The applicantshould have considered this before purchasing said land.4. 5 trees, if this allowed, are being proposed off site which does not preserve the Sneyd ParkConservation area. SPRA has been researching trees in the area and there is an oak which isapprox 1100 years old and believe mentioned in Dooms Day book. Conservation meansconservation not just for this generation but all future generations.I trust planning will take all of the above into account and reject this application once and for all.Kind regards,Stephen SmallChair of SPRA

on 2022-01-10   OBJECT

Page 2 of 7

-

Figure 1: Overlaid image of Approved planning 2017 (Yellow) and proposed amendments Dec

2021 (Blue) NOTES: A: This shows how the steps have moved forwards and a raised railed balcony is now overlooking flat 7 courtyard and straight into our glass fronted entrance and bedrooms, generally moving further towards Flat 7 and removing all privacy. B: 2 extra windows have been added that directly face our glass fronted door, courtyard and kitchen windows in Flat 7. C: The size of the top floor has increased considerably and it has now been converted from a garage into 2 extra bedrooms. On the backside it now has floor to ceiling windows looking directly into the gardens of Flat 7 and 2 Church Road due to it’s elevated position. D: Shows the increased size of the middle floor and extension of roof/ balcony puts the new dwellings main living /entertaining space much closer to the kitchen and garden of flat 7, the ground height has also been increased again, raising the new dwelling well above Flat 7’s ground level even further ( it was already 60 cm

Page 3 of 7

Area A Some of the most worrying concerns are the expansion forwards on the side of the middle floor towards our courtyard, front entrance and kitchen which is further enhanced by the large windows directly facing us and the railed balcony on top of this extension allowing people to look straight into our hallway which connects our bedrooms on one side to our bathroom on the other side. Basically, you could clearly see us walking back from the shower to our bedroom. This balcony is also now directly opposite our young daughter’s bedroom and would allow anyone to look straight into her bedroom.

In the revised Heritage Design and Access Statement updated Dec 2021 they try to justify this by saying that there will be planting between the two buildings to prevent privacy loss but having spoken to the party wall surveyor he has advised that the retaining wall and piling around the new properties footprint will only have a maximum soil depth of 30cm which is insufficient to support the life of any tree that may provide sufficient foliage or shielding at this elevated height, anything planted will simply die or fail to grow to a significant height or width. The supplied tree plan also shows that T20 a 15m high densely foliaged tree will also be removed (to allow the piling to proceed) meaning there will be absolutely no screening possible at this higher level, on these grounds I would kindly ask that any extension forwards on the side of the middle floor are declined as they significantly impact flat 7 privacy inside and outside of the property.

Page 4 of 7

Area B Additional windows have been added in the SW Elevation Plan (026-P-022 revision 06) annotated as number 8 on the plan, this will allow direct views into Woodlands glass fronted door, kitchen, daughter’s bedroom and courtyard. (See Figure 1 ) Area C Perhaps one of the biggest changes is the size of the top floor which has increased considerably and is no longer an uninhabited garage additionally it has new large floor to ceiling windows allowing unrestricted views into the garden of Flat 7 and 2 Church Road at a highly elevated position. Please see Figure 2 below as this illustrates this point from another angle. This change from a garage into 2 bedrooms alters the property from a 4-bed into a 6-bed property which was never approved, additionally this expansion will allow the building to loom over Woodlands Flat 7’s courtyard and kitchen in a very imposing manner. This is firstly an overdevelopment of the site and secondly greatly impacts the privacy of both neighbours. Area D Shows an increase in the middle floor ground height putting it way above Woodlands ground height, there are also large massing changes. The increased hight and dimensions of the middle level (which is already raised 60cm’s above our ground level) will bring it a lot higher and closer to our grade 2 listed turret, this was a planning denial condition of the original planning consent back in 2017/18 and the developer was asked to move the building further away from the turret, but this now appears to have been ignored and the increased massing has been resubmitted. With the developer’s main lounge/living area (middle level) already being raised by 60cm above our land and with the wide-open glass folding doors, any noise will permeate directly into our main outdoor patio living area, any attempt to increase the height or size of this main living/entertaining area in the development will only magnify the above issues which are already a significant concern. I have also attached below an artist’s impression of how these new amendments will affect the privacy in context to Woodlands Flat 7 and 2 Church Road, viewed from the back of all 3 properties, again I have listed the main areas of concern as A/B/C and D and again I’ve expanded on this in more detail below Figure 2.

Page 5 of 7

Figure 2: Artist’s impression of the new dwelling amendments in context to Woodlands and No. 2 Church Road NOTES: This image shows the line of sight into ‘Woodlands’ and ‘No. 2 Church Road’ gardens. A: Increased massing on the side allows overlooking into Woodlands courtyard and glass front door and also allows a line of s ight into Flat 7’s back garden. B: Omitted as not seen from this perspective C: The conversion of the top floor garage into a living area with new large floor-to-ceiling panelled windows and the increase of massing to the rear will greatly increase overlooking of both properties and complete loss of privacy. D: The middle floor which is the main living and entertainment area also has an increase in floor height above Woodlands ground level allowing further visual intrusion. Increased size of middle floor and extension of roof/ balcony puts the new dwellings main living /entertaining space much closer to the turret, kitchen and garden of Flat 7, the ground height has also been increased even further beyond the 60cm’s it was already above woodlands ground level.

Page 6 of 7

Area A In the proposed increased massing on the SW Elevation Plan (026-P-022 revision 06) the stairs and railing have come further forward which will create overlooking into our courtyard, our kitchen and our glass classed front door and into the back garden. Area C: Top Floor Conversion from Garage into two Bedrooms They are attempting to change the top-level garage into two bedrooms; anyone inside the bedrooms will be able to clearly see into our garden (See Figure 2). This is a significant change compared to a smaller non-living space garage which would have spent most of its time empty. There also appears to be potential access out onto the wildflower roof allowing even greater loss of privacy, if this top level is converted into bedrooms, then the wildflower area has the potential to be exploited in some format outside of its original purpose. Again, the developer was previously requested that this top level was only ever intended to be used as a non-living space due to its elevated position over the surrounding properties and its effect on privacy and yet this previous condition seems to have been completely ignored in the proposed amendments. Area C: Amendment to Window Design on Top Floor The new window design on the top floor is another highly significant change which will impact our privacy and several other neighbours to a staggering degree. They have changed the design from a small single window (that was originally designed to allow light into a garage ) to a substantial glazed section and in combination with the change of use into bedrooms and due to the vastly higher elevation of the top level over several neighbours this will now heavily impact privacy into our garden and 2 Church Road. Area D: Increased height of floor level and massing expansion on middle floor The middle floor has a further increase in floor height above Woodlands ground level, allowing additional visual intrusion. The increased size of the middle floor and extension of roof/ balcony puts the new dwellings main living /entertaining space, which includes an outdoor patio area much closer to the kitchen and garden of Flat 7 at its narrowest point between the two properties, the wide-open glass folding doors at this increased height will allow them to look directly into our garden and kitchen windows. With the developer’s main lounge/living area (middle level) already being raised by 60cm above our land. Any attempt to increase the height or size of this main living/entertaining area in the development will only magnify the above issues which are already a significant concern.

Page 7 of 7

Additional Concerns By developing the garage into a living space, the developer is trying to increase this property from a 4-bed to a 6-bed, this is an overdevelopment of the site. The newly submitted Planning Heritage Statement appears to concentrate primarily on the colour of the brickwork and is surprisingly low key about the extensive massing increase, it is clearly being used to try and divert interest away from the massing changes which we assume are the developer’s primary goal. Additionally, the Boundary is wrong in the Proposed Tree Plan (026-P-025 Revision 04) and Proposed Site plan (026-P-013 revision 07) Furthermore, the developer is still trying to remove Tree T20 (which is not his tree) as shown in the Proposed Tree Plan (026-P-025 Revision 04) and Tree Replacement Information document with the wrong boundary. I would very much appreciate if the above objections could be taken into consideration, I feel our objections raise serious concerns regarding privacy as well as making sure the development adheres to all the previous conditions, so it blends as delicately as possible into its surroundings. If possible, could a site visit please be arranged with a planning officer, so all our concerns can be clearly visualised, and the privacy ramifications taken into account. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours Sincerely Singeon and Kat Daer

on 2022-01-04   OBJECT

The revised plans submitted on the 14th December do not appear to address themajority of concerns raised by myself as well as other concerned neighbours. The heritage reportstates that "the new design, which is of a similar scale, mass and volume to the approved will notcause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area or the detriment to thesetting the listed buildings.". This is patently not the case as the building line has been extendedsuch that there is significant on the neighbouring listed buildings. Indeed, the building line of theoriginal plans allowed for a clear view from the conservatory of No 2 Church Road to be retained,whereas the revised extends over half way down the windows of this room. Further, the heritagestatement states "The changes include a slight modification to the design whereby the envelop ispulled away from the neighbouring properties and and the external appearance seeks to exchangelimestone walls with that of glazed bricks." We contend again that the use of blue / green glazedbricks is far from a slight modification, and would be an absolute blight on the character of the twoexisting heritage buildings. I once again strongly object to the proposals. David Pople

on 2021-11-26   OBJECT

I have commented upon this development application before. My renewed interest isbecause on examining the plans submitted both with the earlier Application and with this currentone I found a "missing tree". Existing Tree 20 is on the early plans and not shown in the later plan.Maybe this is because T20 is within the curtilage of No 4 Church Road, not the development site,and its inclusion is thought not to be necessary in this later Application by the applicant. It is quiteclose to the boundary between No 4 and No 5 Church Road.I have now had an opportunity to visit the property next door to look at the trees withouttrespassing - at the invitation of a householder at No 4.T20 is a splendid Bay Tree - and contributes a great deal to the amenity and ambience of No 4Church Road.Were consent for the development between No 4 and No 5 Church Road to be granted thenexamination of the plans shows that the roots of T20 would need protection with a Root ProtectionArea being delineated and enforced. I fear for its survival - having noted the "almost total treeclearance" that has already occurred on this site, I worry for this one!I see that this Application is still Pending Consideration. Please include a Root Protection Area forthe Bay Tree - T20 in the original plan and now not shown in the current plan - as a "pre-workscommencing" Condition if consent is granted. This tree should be a retained tree and treated assuch. Even though it is not owned by the developer of the plot of land between Nos 4 and 5 it willneed protection from the effect of the works going on in the plot between No 4 and No 5, as it isclear that major earth works are involved, indeed many have already occurred, and these rootsmust come under threat if similar works are planned along the boundary. It is fortunate indeed thatit cannot be felled!

on 2021-08-31   OBJECT

I live in the house directly next to the development site. I wish to object to the proposedchanges to the site, which in my view needs to be kept to the original plan both in size andmaterials used.

Unfortunately, the proposed building is not in keeping with the lovely Victorian buildings either sideof it so the footprint should not be allowed to be any bigger or closer to the neighbours for anyreason whatsoever as that would negatively affect the neighbours views, light and the aestheticsof the two very classic buildings at either side.

The proposed changes elevate the new property, thus further changing the character of the areaand so should not be permitted as this would make the building less discreet than was originallyaccepted..

The proposed changes to the materials used on the building, the proposed blue glazed tiles arecompletely out of character of the local surroundings, the local Victorian buildings and the localconservation area as a whole. Blue glazed bricks are more suited to a seaside town, not SneydPark in Bristol.

The proposal to remove trees from the site is unacceptable. Sadly, some have already beenremoved unnecessarily and as per conditions of the original application were supposed to bereplaced but there is no evidence of this.

on 2021-08-31   OBJECT

My property is adjacent to the development site, and I wish to object to the furtherplanning application for this vacant plot of land.

Aspects of my property containing 3 large windows directly face the proposed development. Theproposed enlarged property will reduce light into my property significantly and to an unacceptablelevel.

The size of the proposed building is very large given the size of the plot and the proportions ofland to building are disproportionate to surrounding properties.

The plot sits between two large, Victorian, listed buildings and the proposed building materials,including glazed green/blue bricks will be entirely out of keeping with the requirement to besensitive to the surroundings. This was acknowledged to be important in the original application.

This plot is in the Sneyd Park conservation area, and there are tree preservation orders on manyof the trees on this plot. The original application allowed for their removal on the basis that theywere replaced. This current application contains no such plans, which is unacceptable in aconservation area.

on 2021-08-29   OBJECT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to submit this public comment as a formal objection to the planning application17/05145/F which is due to be constructed in the neighbouring area.

The proposed development has recently been amended (application reference number21/03386/X) and it is this variation that I object to for a number of reasons.

Principally, the new proposition entirely ignores the safeguarding of trees within the conservationarea as there is no mention of said trees being replaced. It is felt that this new proposal istherefore not in line with the environmental preservation that is necessary for the area and thuscannot be condoned.

Moreover, the new application states that the property is due to increase in size to accommodate agym and swimming pool. The proposed building now extends further down the slope and takes upa larger proportion of the site as a whole. This would undeniably encroach on our privacy as itwould mean that residents of this house would have a direct view into our back garden which weare not in favour of. If this proposal were to go ahead, we would suggest that it be a condition ofthe development that trees are planted at the bottom of the site to safeguard our privacy.

The original application acknowledged the sensitivity of the development with it being betweenlisted heritage buildings. However, the new proposal of having blue/green glazed bricks is totallyout of keeping with this requirement as it would not match the surrounding area. It is felt that thenew proposed facade of the property would significantly impact on the beauty of the

neighbourhood as a whole.

The new proposal exposes many issues with the planning application as stated above and thuswe object to its development.

on 2021-08-27   OBJECT

This is manifestly more than an application for variation - it is, in effect, an entirely newapplication given the wholly different nature of the proposed property (size and materials) whencompared with the original application upon which planning permission was granted.

The proposed materials are totally out of keeping with the neighbouring listed buildings. Thesebuildings are significant and of important heritage - the original grant of planning permissionrecognised this, thus the condition was imposed. It would be contrary to the spirit/object of theoriginal grant to permit this variation and would undermine the acknowledgement that it wasessential to ensure the special interest of the Listed Buildings and Character of the ConservationArea were preserved.

In the same vein, the importance of preserving the trees within this conservation area was fullyrecognised when permission was granted, it being a condition that trees being removed (many ofwhich already had the benefit of TPO's) should be replaced. The current application does notprovide for the replacement of trees. Allowing the application would undermine the generalprinciple of the TPO and, specifically, cause significant detriment to the area by the diminution inthe number of trees.

The proposed development is disproportionately large for the site.

In light of the above and for the reasons articulated by the other objectors, which we adopt andsupport, we object to the application.

on 2021-08-25   OBJECT

Page 2 of 6

living space due to its elevated position over the surrounding properties and its effect on privacy and yet this previous condition seems to have been completely ignored in the proposed amendments.

Amendment to Window Design on Top Floor

- The new window design on the top floor is another highly significant change which will impact our privacy and several other neighbours to a staggering degree. They have changed the design from a small single window ( that was originally designed to allow light into a garage ) to a substantial glazed section and in combination with the change of use into bedrooms and due to the vastly higher elevation of the top level over several neighbours this will now heavily impact privacy into our garden and other properties (See attached photos in Figure. 1 Page 6).). Again the developer was previously requested that this top level was only ever intended to be used as a non-living space due to its elevated position over the surrounding properties.

Middle Level Change in Window Design in the Middle level

- The change of the window design on the middle level (facing our property from its side) will alter it from recessed and angled slits that would have provided some privacy, but the proposed changes will alter it to wide open glass panels that allow unrestricted views into our courtyard, heavily glass fronted entrance and daughter’s bedroom window. (See attached photos in Figure. 1 Page 6). again the deliberate use of these originally approved angled slits was to provide light to the developers home but at the same time provide privacy to Flat 7 glass fronted entrance.

- We live in a flat with a very long and wide hallway that joins bathrooms on one side with bedrooms on the other, the hall way is visible through our glass fronted entrance windows and door (See attached photos in Figure. 1 Page 6).). Everyday us and our daughters have to walk partially dressed from bathroom to bedroom and vice versa, the proposed windows on the new development will look directly into our hallway.

Increased Dimensions of Middle Floor - The increased dimensions of the middle level (which is already raised 60cm’s above

our ground level) will bring it a lot closer to our grade 2 listed turret, this was a planning denial condition of the original planning consent back in 2017/18 and the developer was asked to move the building away from the turret (See attached photos in Figure. 1 Page 6).) but this now appears to have been ignored and the increased massing has been resubmitted.

- With the developer’s main lounge/living area (middle level) already being raised by 60cm above our land and with the wide-open glass folding doors any noise will permeate directly into our main outdoor patio living area, any attempt to increase the height or size of this main living/entertaining area in the development will only magnify the above issues which are already a significant concern.

- The increase of the kitchen area to the Southwest of their kitchen will move the floor to ceiling large windows closer to our courtyard and kitchen, allowing the people inside to look into our kitchen windows, courtyard, large glass fronted entrance and daughter’s bedroom.

- The original size reduction to the southwest corner section was a previous planning condition to allow proper spacing between our two properties but again this massing has been resubmitted.

Change of Façade Materials - The requested change from limestone cladding to green glazed brick and dark grey

metal windows is going to make the new property stand out like a blot on the landscape

Page 3 of 6

compared to the grade 2 listed bath stone buildings it sits between, the original planning application which was approved in 2018 would allow the new building to blend much more kindly into its surrounding.

1.8m English Laurel Hedge on entire Woodlands house boundary

- The new plans show a wooden fence on the lower level side of the garden but Woodlands Flat 7 have a signed legal agreement bound to the developers land that a 1.8m high English laurel hedge must be installed for the entire boundary length between the bottom wall all the way up to the driveway which is around 30 meters, this does not appear on the plans submitted with neither the bottom section or top section of the boundary showing this hedge.

Tree Protection Concerns - On the original Tree Protection Plan (171115-LAW-TPP-Rev-D-LI&AM&AR) back in

2018 – trees T19 & T20 were shown to be in the developers land and T1 was omitted from their land. After the instruction of a surveyor and GPS survey it was proved that the tree positions they submitted for the planning application was incorrect and T19 & T20 are actually in our land and T1 (which has significant upkeep and cost concerns) was in theirs, the developer is continuing to remove trees using this original planning application and although incorrect he is still attempting to remove trees he does not own due to this previously incorrect tree position submission and it’s initial approval.

- Due to the above error a legal binding agreement with several strict conditions was drawn up between Flat 7 and the developer and T19 was felled under this agreement as long as a 1.8m hedge was installed but T20 must remain as part of the legal agreement due to its privacy screening benefits at a higher level. (see attached photo in Figure. 1 Page 6)

- Due to the changes nearer the front this could impact any trees and planting and root balls nearby leading to a new landscaping assessment.

- Piles along SW corner may damage roots on T20 and G24 T23 requiring further investigation by a tree preservation officer.

There is an error in the recently submitted MMA tree plan

- This document needs to be corrected (026-P-025-proposed tree plan) the tree T20 has been completely omitted, we are extremely concerned that the new developer is attempting to take out our ( which sits very close to the boundary ) tree which provides considerable shielding to our courtyard, heavily glass fronted entrance and daughter’s bedroom window. Please see photo attached of T20 a 10m mature bay tree providing essential screening. Figure. 1 Page 6.

Our glass fronted entrance and daughters bedroom

- We live in a flat with a very long and wide hallway that joins bathrooms on one side with bedrooms on the other, due to this we commonly have to walk partially dressed from bathroom to bedroom and vice versa, the windows on the new development will look directly into our hallway and daughters bedroom, this will only worsen if any tree screening is removed or changes are made to the developments windows and the developers building size increases. ( Please see photos attached Figure.1 Page 6 )

In Addition, we also have the following concerns of the proposed amendments as a whole. Overdevelopment:

- This new building is significantly bigger than the previously approved iteration leading to an overdevelopment of this narrow sloping site.

Page 4 of 6

Heritage: - The increased massing and changes to façade materials disregards and offers

substantial harm to the neighbouring heritage and listed properties. Whilst the previous application whilst new and not totally in keeping with the areas architecture it offered benefits and was sympathetic in being proportionate in scale to the site and set back from the gardens and historic frontages of the neighbouring properties. This larger development is not in keeping with the surrounding landscape or environmental setting.

- These changes taken together would not enhance or conserve the historic premises neighbouring and it could be seen to offer significant harm towards them.

Destruction of historic value:

- The piles and new retaining wall on the Woodlands side will destroy an existing old boundary wall that was uncovered during excavation, this wall is a continuation of the listed building retaining boundary wall that wraps around the grade II listed property of The Woodlands. Can this listed stone wall really be destroyed ?

Imposing:

- This application moves various floors forward into the garden, imposing and impacting on the neighbouring premises.

- The moving forward of rooms and easily accessible outside space (wildflower roofs), regardless of if there are doors directly accessing the roof areas from the multiple new bedrooms, would be imposing over the neighbouring family gardens leading to new overlooking of both the grassed areas and courtyard, entrance and bedroom.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Planning gain agreements:

- The massing now seems too big and wrong for the site and could well be against the policies of the authority with the bedroom numbers and larger square footage could affect any CIL or Planning gain agreements or other requirements of the authority.

Amendment plan errors:

- The submitted document 026-P-019 seems to be missing the top floor and therefore does not give a true representation of the scale and impact of the building.

Garage Removal:

- There was previously a garage that it is easy to assume would be part of an appropriately sized property in the previously agreed application and an integral part of the authorities planning policies. This has now been removed and so creates a less sustainable premises when you look to the future as good design should.

- Removal of garage against transport policies and making the property a less sustainable premises.

Privacy loss:

- New overlooking of Flat 7’s garden and view directly into Flat 7’s main glass fronted entrance corridor, courtyard and daughters bedroom.

- None agreed removal of Flat 7’s TPO protected tree T20 that provides substantial screening during the 2 year long works and for the future

I would very much appreciate if the above objections could be taken into consideration, I feel our objections raise serious concerns regarding privacy as well as making sure the development adheres to all the previous conditions so it blends as delicately as possible into its surroundings.

Page 5 of 6

If possible, could a site visit please be arranged with a planning officer, so all of our concerns can be clearly visualised, and the privacy ramifications taken into consideration. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours Sincerely Singeon and Kat Daer Attachment Below - Figure 1: Diagram showing key views of Flat 7 Woodlands in relation to the new development

Page 6 of 6

on 2021-08-23   OBJECT

It is very disappointing to read this kind of Application. "In the United Kingdom, the termConservation Area almost always applies to an area of special architectural or historic interest, thecharacter of which is considered worthy of preservation or enhancement" This application goesagainst the whole ethos of a Conservation Area.The Applicant, upon becoming the new owner, has applied to vary the existing Application17/05145/F, presumably having knowledge of the existing planning application, its consent and theconditions; and now requests to do everything possible to change that application ignoring the factthat it is in a Conservation Area.I'll not comment on the aesthetics, rather leave that to the neighbours who risk see their amenitybeing spoiled should these variations be permitted.I just want to comment upon the effect this will have on the trees.Trees and shrubs on the site will be lost to facilitate the development. This was noted in theApplication 17/05145 and following upon a number of discussions and renewed plans,undertakings were finally decided upon with the LPAs Tree Officer. He wrote:"The proposed reprovision of trees on site accords with the Local Planning Authority's treereplacement policies to replacement those trees lost to facilitate the development" having reported"The proposals involve the retention of 8 trees, but the loss of 20 trees and this would create a gapbetween the existing buildings, particularly with the loss of the understory vegetation. Theproposals included low level planting at the front of the site; this must be increased to block thepotential open space......I therefore consider that BTRS calculations are required for trees T9, T11,T16, T19, T20, T21, T22, T26, T27 which equates to 25 replacement trees or a financialcontribution of 25 X £765 = £19,125 pro rata dependant on the number of replacement trees onsite. Replacement trees have been identified with the design and access statement; however, noformal landscape plan has been provided at this stage to show a robust mitigation for tree loss on

site. We require a high-quality landscape plan containing tree location, species, planting stock size(Minimum 12-14cm Girth) & maintenance schedule for watering and aftercare to ensureestablishment of newly planted trees. .........This needs to be provided prior to consent as aUnilateral Undertaking needs to be agreed for tree not replaced on site."The report went on:"A landscape plan and tree pit details were submitted by the applicant. Outlining that 19replacement trees would be provided on-site. In response to the additional information submitted,the Officer stated no objections to the proposals and requested that conditions are attached to anyrelating to the protection of trees during construction and arboricultural supervision. A UnilateralUndertaking should be agreed between the Council and the applicant to ensure the offsite plantingof six trees is funded and appropriately located.""Suitable specimen trees will be planted within the site following completion of the proposed newdwelling within the matrix of a detailed landscaping scheme. It will not be feasible to plant the totalnumber of required replacement trees so locations will be identified elsewhere through liaison withBristol City Council Tree Officers."

This new Application (21/03386/X) is very dismissive of the negotiations and conditions abouttrees that were part of 17/05145/F, merely saying, on page 13 of the MMA, "TREES There is nofurther encroachment on the root protection zone compared to the approved design. Since theplanning application T14 & T15 have been lawfully felled. Seven proposed trees have beenomitted. These will need to be planted off site instead."If I am reading the Conditions and AO's reporting of 17/05145 correctly (there have beenvariations so it is not straightforward) then for that Application there were to be 25 replacementtrees provided by the Applicant, 19 on site and 6 off site. This latest iteration states that if theproposed development envisaged in this Application goes ahead (21/03386), there will not remainspace for 7 of the trees that were proposed to be planted on site actually to be planted on the site.This then means that the new off-site planting requirement becomes 6 (from 17/05145) and 7(moved off site by 21/03386) = 13 trees. I'd hate for the figure of 7 from this Application to becomethe new total! Please remember the 6 off site plantings still required from 17/05145. The total off-site becomes 13.Examination of the BCC Tree Sponsorship mapping of available tree sponsorship/treereplacement sites shows 11 sites within a mile of the development. As many of the replacementtrees as possible should be planted as close as possible to the development site. In 2012 theresidents of the area had a 2-year debate with the University of Bristol about where replacementtrees should be planted when trees had been lost from a Conservation Area. The final decisionwas that trees lost from a Conservation Area should where at all possible be planted within theConservation Area to maintain the characteristics of a Conservation Area.If this application for an enlarged house goes ahead please add together the two off-site treeprovision requirements in order to provide sufficient mitigation (eventually) for the trees lost todevelopment.

on 2021-08-22   OBJECT

16, Bishops Court,Knoll Hill,Sneyd Park,BristolBS9 1NS21.08.21.

Re: 21/03386/XApplication for the variation of condition No. 10 (List of approved plans) following grant of planningapplication 17/05145/F for the construction of three storey four bedroom house. | WoodlandsChurch Road Sneyd Park Bristol BS9 1JT

Dear Sir,I live approximately half a mile from the proposed development and therefore do not look over it,but I walk regularly around the area where I have lived for 22 years and take great interest in thepreservation of this Conservation Area.The design of the house has been carefully planned with maximum accommodation provided inminimum space. Building into the slope of the land means that the impact from the road is small. Ithas many environmentally friendly features and interesting elevations. Sited in a new, architectdesigned modern estate, it would sit very well.However, Sneyd Park is not such an area. There are more modern houses in the area, but the twohouses which flank this proposed development are not amongst them. This piece of land is anopportunity to build something which would complement the existing houses. The integrity of the

existing houses should be maintained and their views taken into consideration.The use of materials, especially the green glazed bricks, is totally out of keeping with theneighbouring houses - indeed all the houses in Sneyd Park: as is grey sheeting and largealuminium windows.In addition, the loss of trees, at a time when the benefit of trees in reducing the level carbondioxide is very much to the fore, is inappropriate. Newly planted trees will do nothing meaningfulfor the environment for at least 20 years. And in any case, replanting 'off site' is no benefit at all toSneyd Park! There is one large mature copper beech tree which will be threatened by excavationdisturbing its roots; this would be a tragedy to lose such a tree.If you do not know the area, I would urge you to visit and see the location - hoardings are in placeand digging already started by the look of it.For all of the above reasons, I would ask you to reject this application in its present form.

Yours faithfully,

Christine E. Byrne

on 2021-08-20   OBJECT

I am the vicechair of Sneyd Park residents association and have been involved inplanning applications within the Sneyd Park area for over 15 years. SPRA is not a " BLOCKING "Organisation but aims to advise assist and facilitate planning proposals where possible. SPRAwas set up 52 years ago to represent the residents of Sneyd Park on a number of issues not leastthe maintenance of quality of life issues and planning and always aims to act in the best interestsof SPRA residents and area as a whole. To do that it relies on a degree of compliance withplanning regulations and reasonableness on applicants parts to stay within agreed parameters ofAuthorised reports and surveys. All to often the " goodwill" is stretched beyond acceptability ofboth SPRA requirements and more importantly residents within the area of application who will beadversley impacted by inappropriate amendments of existing planning applications. The aboveapplication falls within the latter category and should be refused. As mentioned by others the newproposed footprint of the building is considerably larger than the previous application and willreduce the space between neighbouring properties. The original specification within the agreedreport specifies natural lines and materials to maintain the aesthetics of the build and area. Thenew proposal goes against that. The tree planting proposal is also unacceptable for a dwellingproperty within a conservation area. It is not common policy to substitute replacement treesrequired to another area within a garden property. For clear reasons the replacement policy isthere to reduce the impact of tree removal. This will NOT achieve that. For the reasons above thisapplication to ammend should be REFUSED.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

As a neighbour of the property where the development is due to take place I am writingto object to this application for a number of reasons:- It is proposed that the building is enlarged from the original plan. The original plan already tried tofit a property in a very narrow strip of land, and was already negatively affecting the immediateneighbours. Increasing the size will have additional negative effect, in terms of light, aestheticlooks etc between the adjacent buildings.- It is also proposed to elevate the structure. The original proposal was already out of characterwith the two adjacent Victorian buildings but had the benefit of trying to fit in the surroundings bykeeping a discreet low profile. The proposed change goes against this attempt to be as little atodds as possible with the existing surroundings.- The proposed blue glazed bricks would be seen completely out of character with the existingsurroundings: Feddon House on one side is an elegant Victorian house still displaying beautifulstained-glass windows, and Woodlands on the other side displays a most impressive andinteresting architecture. Blue glazed bricks will not contribute to protect the character of theconservation area, as was intended by the original building application.- Finally, the proposed removal of trees seems to be unacceptable. The proposal to replant themsomewhere else is wholly inappropriate in the context of this application (some trees have alreadybeen removed and, as per the conditions of the original application, were supposed to have beenreplaced)

on 2021-08-16   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development because it's style and scale are not at all insympathy with the Sneyd Park Conservation Area They will also cause unnecessary distress toexisting, neighbouring residents whose ability to enjoy the home they live in will be severelycurtailed if these unsympathetic and inappropriate changes are permitted to go ahead. Being aconservation area, the trees are protected. This proposal not only makes no provision for that butalso goes against previous planning permission that had been granted (and which had been insympathy, both from a tree preservation and a design perpective). I would like to fully support thecomments provided in detail by all other objectors to this proposed development.

on 2021-08-15   OBJECT

As Chair of the Sneyd Park Residents Association (SPRA) I fully object to thisapplication for the following reasons:

1.MMA Report refers to land has changed ownership and new owners find previous approval doesnot meet their needs. It was purchased with planning and the MMA are not minor alterations.

2.The new proposal has increased in size and the addition of a swimming pool and gym nowreduces land around the property and will have an impact on the two listed buildings.3. MMA report states "Seven proposed trees have been omitted. These will need to be planted offsite instead." Sneyd Park is a Conservation area they should be planted on the site.4. The report David MartynOn Behalf Of: Conservation SectionDate: 23.10.17Clearly stated1.2 We support this application with conditions intended to protect the special interest of the Listedbuilding and character of the Conservation area.

Conditions statedPrior to the commencement of the element samples of the following materials shall be madeavailable to the Local Authority and approved in writing:- Sawn finish natural limestone cladding- Split-face natural limestone cladding- All external hard surfacing- Cladding to external planters to Church Road

- Timber cladding- Window moulding sections- Opaque glazing elementsThe development shall be completed in accordance with the approved drawings.

Reason: To protect the special character of the Conservation Area, and the Setting of the Listedbuildings.

MMA Report states

"Facade material changed from lime stone to glazed brick"

SPRA object to MMA proposal blue glazed bricks for the following reasons.

1.Will be totally out of keeping with Listed buildings2.David Martyn report dated 23.10.17 clearly stated it should be limestone to protect the specialcharacter of the Conservation Area, and the Setting of the Listed buildings.

SPRA would urge the applicant to reconsider their application and follow the conditions set out byDavid Martyn report.

I trust Planning will take SPRAs objections, and above, into account, and reject this application.

Kind regards,

Stephen Small

Chair of SPRA.

on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

Dear Sirs

Our property adjoins the vacant development plot. We wish to object to this further planningapplication on the following grounds:

1. Right to Light: given the close proximity to our property of the original proposed development, adetailed right to light survey was conducted. This new application proposes an enlarged propertythat will further reduce the light into our property, and we contend that this will be beyondacceptable limits2. Trees: Snead Park is a conservation area, and the original application was given permission toremove a significant number of trees (many of which had TPO's on them) as long as replacementtrees were planted. This new application now ignores this. We consider the subsequent erosion ofthe greenery to be unacceptable3. Proposed materials: the original application acknowledged that this was a sensitivedevelopment, being between two significant listed heritage buildings. The original choice ofmaterials was a vital part of the new building fitting in. The revised choice of blue / green glazedbricks is totally out of keeping with this requirement, as are the other changes in proposedmaterials4. Loss of privacy: the new proposal extends further down the slope such that bare walls wouldnow be directly facing our conservatory5. Inappropriate building to land ratio: it would appear that the developer is intending to squeezeas large a building as possible onto a small plot of land.6. The expanded floor plan appears to be to accommodate an indoor swimming pool and gym,rooms that are certainly not essential to the development