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 Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 31-08-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 03-08-21
Determination Deadline 16-08-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 12    Total: 12
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

Mrs Sara Garnett  5 WOODLANDS, CHURCH ROAD STOKE BISHOP BRISTOL  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.

Dr Ruth Tinson  4 WOODLANDS CHURCH ROAD BRISTOL  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.

Mr Hitesh Mehta  THE DELL, CHURCH ROAD STOKE BISHOP BRISTOL  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.

Mr Charles Hyde  27 STOKE HILL BRISTOL  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.

  FLAT 7 WOODLANDS 4 CHURCH ROAD   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

Ms Stephanie French BTF Tree Champion  18 OLD SNEED AVENUE, BRISTOL BS9 1SE  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.

Mrs Christine Byrne  16 BISHOPS COURT KNOLL HILL BRISTOL  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

Mr Alan Jenkinson  2 CAVENDISH GARDENS BRISTOL  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.

Mrs Armelle Young  FLAT 2 WOODLANDS CHURCH ROAD STOKE BISHOP  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)

Mrs BARBARA HOLLYHEAD  31 GLENAVON PARK SNEYD PARK BRISTOL  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.

Mr Stephen Small  20 DOWNLEAZE SNEYD PARK BRISTOL  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.

Mr David Pople  2 CHURCH ROAD STOKE BISHOP BRISTOL  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