While I certainly don't oppose the redevelopment of brownfield sites or the creation ofmuch needed housing, this is unsustainable overdevelopment with no joined up thinking about thereality of public transport provision in this city, the issues that will arise when people live likebattery hens, and the fact that once people have put their lifetime's work into paying theirmortgages, this decision will be irreversible. With no master plan to get people to their places ofwork in Bristol, 17 new dwellings with no parking will create a dangerous and polluting mess at thejunction of Berkeley Road and Gloucester Road, which is already an overly busy junction, withextremely poor air quality. Residents of Berkeley Road, who, with no RPZ, already struggle to parkwith the shoppers and workers who park here, will be encouraged to pull up their front gardens tocreate parking, discouraging wildlife and removing the soakaways that currently exist on this clayhill, adding to the subsidence issues. Meanwhile, the bus stop on Gloucester Road will standthere, transporting nobody. Please could we have some joined up thinking in planning, and somemettle to stop central government from dictating what we all do? We will all be living with the messlong after the boxes are ticked and the developers have trousered their extreme profits.

Although I think that 17 apartments on this site is too many for reasons already statedby local residents, I can appreciate the desire to avoid an appeal to central government. I wouldlike to request that affordable homes are secured through a section 106 agreement. .Also, asthere will very probably be a sharp increase in parked vehicles on Berkeley Road and potentialrisks to safety, could I request some expert advice and action on traffic calming please. Forexample an illuminated 20mph slow down sign might help.

As a leaseholder of a flat in 100 Gloucester Road, I would like to object to the densityand scale of this development on the corner of Gloucester Road. The increase of accompanyingtraffic within this small area which has traffic lights, pedestrian lights and a very large bus stop, willincrease reduce traffic speeds and increase adherent pollution for residents and schoolchildrenusing the local school.The scheme as it stands, will infringe on the privacy of some residents in The Library Apartments.I think the development should be reconsidered reducing its scale and density.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:As a leaseholder of a I would like to object to the density

and scale of this development on the corner of Gloucester Road. The increase of accompanying

traffic within this small area which has traffic lights, pedestrian lights and a very large bus stop, will

increase reduce traffic speeds and increase adherent pollution for residents and schoolchildren

using the local school.

The scheme as it stands, will infringe on the privacy of some residents in The Library Apartments.

I think the development should be reconsidered reducing its scale and density.

Dear Charlotte, I see this matter is coming before the DCC B for a decision on 10 May. Looking at the current published documents, I still cannot see any report from the arb Officer. Was one ever produced? If so, may I see it please. Looking at the revised proposed site and landscape plan - attached - it appears that the street tree, T1 will not now be replaced further up Berkeley Rd as was previously shown below. Is this correct?

If so, what compensation will be paid for its loss. When the tree was surveyed in October 2019, it had a stem diameter of 80 mm (8 cm). When I measured it again today it had not grown. Normally a healthy tree can be expected to put on around 2.5 cm a year in girth which means its DBH should be about 10 cm by now. However, given the insults it has suffered over the years for delivery vehicles etc making deliveries to the old Nailsea Electrical site, this is perhaps hardly surprising - it has had to have its rootball reset at least twice. These photographs, taken today, show the current sorry state of the tree - https://photos.app.goo.gl/1Ndb2rJsefsZWhfF8. In these circumstances, and even though it does not meet the threshold for replacement under DM17, the fact that it is a street tree, planted with sponsorship money, means that it really should be replaced with another street tree planted nearby. We also note that the RPAs of trees T2 & T3 both fall within the proposed development area. What proposals have been made to protect these both during construction and thereafter? Aslo, tree T2 looks like it may be in conflict with the proposed off-street parking spaces. What steps will be taken to ensure that it is not damaged as a result? Assuming that the committee decides to grant this application then we ask that these matters will be dealt with by Condition. Dear Development Management and Democratic Services - Please publish this email on the planning portal and place it, as our statement, before the committee when it meets on the 10th. We do not plan to attend to speak to it on the day. Regards Mark CD Ashdown Chair - Bristol Tree Forum

PatioPatio

1.2m

wid

e foo

tpat

h

1234GARDEN FLAT 10 GARDEN FLAT 11

Patio Patio

GREEN ROOFCYCLE STORE

David CahillDesign Consultants Ltd

Unit 2 Office 4 Tower Lane Business ParkWarmley Bristol BS30 8XT

Tel: 01179618888Email: davidcahilldesign@btopenworld.com

Scale:1:200 @ A1

Date:July 2022

Rev: Date: Note

DWG No:

3516/10Proposed Site Plan

Proposed Residential Conversion and Development

102 Gloucester RoadBishopston Bristol

PLANTING SPECIFICATION

Proposed Hard Landscaping Notes:

New permeable paving to site frontages on

Berkeley Road and Gloucester Road. Light

grey paving to parking areas, dark red/

brown paving to residential entrance areas.

To be laid in herringbone pattern.

Residential entrances deliniated with

600mm high pennant stone walls (matching

existing chapel)

New native planting as indicated on site

plan and street scene drawings.

THE BELOW IMPLEMENTAT ION AND MAINTENANCEGUIDELINES ARE FOR P LANNING PURPOSES ONLY TO INDICATE THE

LEVEL OF WORKMANSHIP TO BE SPECIFIED AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTEA DETAILED SPECIFIC ATION.

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 RETAINED TREES

ALL RETAINED TREES TO BE PROTE CTED TO BS 5837. DO NOT DUMP SPOIL ORRUBBISH , EXCAVATE OR DISTURB

TOPSOIL , PARK VEHICLES OR PL ANT, STORE MATERIALS OR PLACE TEMPORARY ACCO MMODATION WITHIN THEBRANCH

SPREAD . THE GROUND LEVEL WITHIN AN AREA OF 3 METRES BEYOND THE B RANCH SPREAD MUST NOT BE CHANGED

WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.

1.2 PLANTING

ALL PLANTS SHALL CONF ORM TO BS 3936 AND BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONALPLANT SPECIFICATION .

S UPPLYING NURSERIES S HALL BE REGISTERED U NDER THE HTA NURSERY CERTIFICATION SCHEM E. ALL PLANTS SHALL

BE PACKED AN D TRANSPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PL ANT HANDLING AS PRODUCED

BY CPSE. PLANTING SHALL NOT BE CARRIED OUT WHEN THE GROUND IS WATERLOGGED, FROST BOUND OR DURING

PERIODS OF COLD DRYING WINDS.

1.3 TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL TO BS 3882, OF EITHER GENERAL PURPOSE O R PREMIUM GRADE . TOPSOIL DEPTHS ARE TO BE 300MM FOR

TREES AND SHRUBS AND 150MM FOR GRASS . IF THE FORMATION LEVE L IS COMPACTED IT SH OULD BE RIPPED

THROUGH BEFORE TOP S OILING. TOPSOIL IS TO BE SPRE AD OVER SUBSOIL IN L AYERS NOT EXCEEDING 150MM,

GENTLY FIRM EACH LAY ER BEFORE SPREADING THE NEXT. DO NO COMPACT TOPSOIL: PRESERVE FRIABLE TE XTURE OF

SEPARATE CRUMBS WHER EVER POSSIBLE.

1.4 OPERATIVES

Indicates existing footpath on

Berkeley Road to be resurfaced in

tarmac with existing drop kerbs

and remaining kerbs reset.

Indicates area to on Gloucester

Road to be re-paved in paving

matching the existing paving

outside Bishopston Library and

existing kerbs to be reset

Pink/blue lines indicate extent

of new pennant kerb to be

constructed along Berkeley

Road. Blue line indicates

dropped kerb

ALL LANDSCAPE OPERATI VES WILL BE APPROPRI ATELY TRAINED , CERTIFIED AND QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE TH E T ASKS

REQUIRED. WHEN REQUIRED, THE RELEVANT CERTIF ICATES WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPEC TION. ALL WORK IS

TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT BRITISH ST ANDARDS, CODES OF PRACTICE A ND

LEGISLATION .

2.0 TREE AND SHRUB PLA NTING

2.1 GROUND PREPARATION

WHERE NECESSARY, TREAT EXISTING WEED GROWTH, BRAMBLES AND REGENE RATIVE MATERIAL WITH A GLYPHOSATE

BASED HERBICIDE AND ALLOW A SUITABLE PER IOD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER F OR THIS TO TAKE

EFFECT . AGENERAL -PURPOSE SLOW RELEASE FERTIL ISER AT T HE RATE OF 75GM/M2 AND TREE PLANTING AND

MULCHING COMPOST AT THE RATE OF 20LITRES /M2 ARE TO BE INCORPORA TED INTO THE TOP 150MM OF TOPSOIL

DURING FINAL CULTIVATIONS. BREAK UP COMPACTED TO PSOIL TO FULL DEPTH AND ALL EXTRANEOUS MATTER SUCH

AS PLASTIC , WOOD, METAL AND STONES GREA TER THAN 50MM IN ANY DIMENSIONSHALL BE REMOVED FRO M SITE .

PLANT ONLY DURING THE FOLLOWING SEASONS: CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS: AT ANY TIME IF GROUND AND WEATHER

CONDITIONS ARE FAVOURABLE . DECIDUOUS TREES : NOV TO LATE MAR. EVERGREENS : SEPT /OCT OR APR/MAY.

HERBACEOUS : SEPT /OCT OR MAR/APR.

TREE PITS OF AT LEAST 75MM DIAMETER GREATER THAN THE ROOT SYSTEM AND NO DEEPER THANTHE ROOTBALL /

CONTAINER DEPTH ARE TO BE EXCAVATED WITH THE SIDES WELL SCAR IFIED TO PREVENT SME ARING. ALL CONTAINER

GROWN AND TREES OVER HEA VY STANDARD SIZE SHALL BE DOUBLE STAKED . S TAKES (SHORT DOUBLE FOR EXTRA

HEAVY STANDARD) SHOULD BE DRIVEN 300MM INTO UNDISTURBEDGROUND BEFORE PLANTING THE TREE , TAKING

CARE TO AVOID UNDERGROUND SERVICES AND CABLES ETC, AND TIED WITH RUBBER TIES WITH SOLID RUBBER SPACER

OF ADEQUATE WIDTH FOR THE TYPE OF TREE T O BE SECURED .

2.2 PLANTING

ALL CONTAINER GROWN ROOT SYSTEMS AND ROOTBALLS SHALL BE THORO UGHLY SOAKED AND ALL CONTAINERS AND

ROOTBALL WRAPPINGS R EMOVED PRIOR TO PLAN TING.

THE TREE SHOULD BE PLANTED AT THE CORRECT DEPTH T AKING INTO ACCOUNT THE POSITION OF THE ROOT FLARE

AND THE FINISHED LEVEL - THE ROOTBALL OR ROOT STEM TRANSITION SH OULD BE LEVEL WITH T HE EXISTING HOST

SOIL OR SURFACE . THE BASE OF THE ROOTB ALL SHOULD TYPICALLY SIT ON SUBSOIL ,FOR LARGER ROOTBALL S THE

SUBSOIL WILL SIT ARO UND THE LOWER PORTION OF THE ROOTBALL.

TREE PITS SHOULD BE B ACKFILLED WITH THE E XCAVATED TOPSOIL ,IF THE ORIGINAL TOP SOIL IS NOT AVAILABL E OR

DEEMED UNSUITABLE , A MULTI-PURPOSE TOPSOIL SHOU LD BE USED . ANY SUBSOIL EXCAVATED SHOULD BE

DISCARDED AND THE SUBSOIL DEPTH (BEYOND 300MM DEEP ) BACKFILLED WITH A H IGH SAND CONTENT SUBSOIL.

BACKFILL SHOULD BE AD DED GRADUALLY,

Bishopston Library and

Apartments

IN LAYERS OF 150MM TO 230MM DEPTH, ENSURING THE TREE I S HELD

UPRIGHT AT EACH STAG E THE FIL L SHOULD BE FIRMED I N TO ELIMINATE ALL A IR POCKETS UNDER AND AROUND THE

ROOT SYSTEM , BUT WITH CARE BEING TAKEN NOT TO EXCESS IVELY COMPACT THE SO IL. THE FINAL LAYER SHOUL D

NOT BE CONSOLIDATED.

GENERAL -PURPOSE SLOW RELEASE FERTILISER (AT THE RATE OF 75GM/M2) AND TREE PLANTING AND MULCHING

COMPOST AT THE RATE OF (20LITRES /M2) ARE TO BE INCORPORA TED INTO THE TOP 150MM OF TOPSOIL DURING

FINAL CULTIVATIONS. APPLY MEDIUM GRADE BA RK MULCH (25-50MM), FREE OF PESTS

TO AN AREA OF 1 METRE DI AMETER AROUND THE BASE OF EACH TREE .

S HRUBS AND HERBACEOUS PLANTS ARE TO BE SE T OUT AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING, BEING SPACED OUT EV ENLY ,

SO THAT WHEN ESTABLI SHED THEY COMPLETELY FILL THE AREA INDIC ATED AS PRECISELY AS POSSIBLE, AND PIT

4A

PLANTED INTO THE PRE PARED SOIL AT THE SPEC IFIED CENTRES WITH M INIMAL DISTURBANCE T O THE ROOTBALL AND

WELL FIRMED IN. APPLY TOP DRESSING SL OW-RELEASE FERTILISER E VENLY AT A RATE 100 G/M2 OVER THE PLANTED

BED.

S PREAD MEDIUM GRADE B ARK MULCH (25-50MM), FREE OF PESTS

, DISEASE FUNGU S AND WEEDS , TO A DEPTH OF

75MM ACROSS ALL NEW PL ANTING AREAS, ENSURING GROUNDCOVER PLANTS ARE NOT BUR IED.

WATER IN ALL TREES AN D SHRUBS / HERBACEOUS PLANTS , AS NECESSARY TO ENS URE THE ESTABLISHMEN T AND

CONTINUED THRIVING OF ALL PLANTING, AT THE END OF EACH DAY OF PLANTING.

2.3 MAINTENANCE

THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL AREAS OF NEW PLANTING FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS

FOLLOWING PRACTICAL COMPLETION. ALL STOCK DEEMED TO B E DEAD, DYING OR DISEASED WITHIN THE DEFECTS

PERIOD SHALL BE REPL ACED BY T HE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN COST.

THE SITE IS TO BE VIS ITED MONTHLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO UNDE RTAKE THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS .

WEED CLEARANCE : ALL PLANTING AREAS ARE TO BE KEPT WEED FREE BY HAND WEEDING OR HERBICIDE TREATM ENT.

LITTER CLEARANCE : ALL LITTER IS TO BE REMOVED FROM PLANTI NG BEDS .

WATERING: ALL SHRUBS ARE TO B E WATERED DURING THE GROWING SEASON FOLLOWING ANY DRY PERIODS OF 7

DAYS . PLANTING AREAS ARE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO FI ELD CAPACITY AT EACH VISIT, ENSURING FULL DEPTH OF

TOPSOIL IS SATURATED , AND EACH TREE IS TO RECEIVE 80 LITRES . CHECKING TREES : ALL TREE TIES AND S TAKES ARE

TO BE CHECKED AND ADJUSTED IF TOO LOOSE

, TOOTIGHT OR IF CHAFFING IS OCCURRING. ANY BROKEN STAKES ARE

TO BE REPLACED . S TAKES TO BE REMOVED WHEN TREES ARE ESTAB LISHED .

Bristol North Baths

FORMATIVE PRUNING: ANY DAMAGED SHOOTS/BRANCHES ARE TO BE P RUNED BACK TO HEALTH Y WOOD. PLANTS ARE

TO BE PRUNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICE TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY WELL -SHAPED

SPECIMENS.

3.0 STRUCTURE MIX

3.1. GROUND PREPARATION

CLEAR SURFACE VEGETAT ION AND REMOVE ARISINGS. WHERE PLANTING IN EXISTING GRASS , CUT EXISTING ROUGH

GRASS AND WEEDS TO B ETWEEN 20MM AND30MM ANDREMOVE 300X300MM SQUARES OF TURF A T 1 METRE

CENTRES FOR STRUCTUR E MIX.

3.2 PLANTING

ALL BARE ROOTED STOCK IS TO BE ROOT DIPPE D IN WATER RETAINING POLYMER . TRANSPLANTS ARE TO BE PIT

PLANTED AND PROTECTED FROM RABBIT DAMAGE BY USING USING APPR OVED PROPRIE TARY TREE AND SHRUB

SHELTERS, 900MM AND600MM HIGH RESPECTIVELY , SECURED WITH STAKES AND TIES AS ADVISED BY THE

MANUFACTURER. ALL EXTRANEOUS MATTER SUCH AS PLASTIC , WOOD, METAL AND STONES GR EATER THAN 50MM IN

ANY DIMENSION SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SITE.

3.3 MAINTENANCE

USING APPROVED HERBIC IDES , A 1 METRE DIAMETER CIRC LE CENTRED ON EACH PLANTING STATION SHALL BE KEPT

WEED FREE THROUGHOUT THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. ANY WEEDS GROWING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO PLANT

STEMS SHALL BE REMOV ED BY HAND. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL AREAS OF NEW WOODLAND

AND STRUCTURE PLANTING FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING PRACTICAL COMPLETION. IN THE AUTUMN FOLL

PLANTING THE CA WILL PREPARE A LIST OF A LL PLANTS WHICH ARE DEAD, DYING OR DISEASED AND ARE TO BE

REPLACED DURING THE FOLLOWINGPLANTING SEASON. ALL STOCK DEEMED TO B E DEAD, DYING OR DISEASED WITHIN

THE DEFECTS PERIOD S REPLACED CONTRACTOR AT THEIR OW COST.

, DISEASE FUNGUS AND WEEDS,

N O R T H

G

lo

u

c

e

s

te

r R

o

a

d

Berkeley Road

2x2m Pedestrian visibility

from 4A. Area within splay to

be kept clear at all times

4

Balcony

Balcony

Balcony

A Oct 2022 General updatesB Oct 2022 General updates

In some ways this latest version of the proposal is an improvement on the previousones. The sub-standard flats have been improved and the carpark frontage to Berkeley Road hasbeen replaced by gardens which fit better in this residential setting. However there are still toomany problems:

There are inconsistencies between the various drawings, for example the existing damaged streettree on Berkeley Road is shown in some but not others. If these contradictory plans are approvedthere's no way of knowing which the developer will follow. Please ensure that the tree is replaced.There may be space for an additional street tree, possibly covered by BNG funds from this orother local developments.

Others have objected to the removal of parking spaces. Their objections fail to note that thisremoval of private parking will free up approximately four public on-street parking spaces whichare not currently available as they would block dropped kerbs to the site.

Where existing parking spaces are removed to create front new gardens on Berkeley Road, theexisting dropped kerbs should be removed in order to discourage pavement parking. At the sametime pavement repairs should be completed as the pavement is currently in a poor state.

Proposed parking spaces 1-4 on Berkeley Road are very close to the busy traffic-light junction, Ithink that vehicles entering / exiting the parking spaces will create a dangerous situation.

The development should include some affordable housing.

The materials proposed for the façade on Berkeley Road is not typical of the area, the developershould try harder to make the new building fit in. The new-build section has four pitched roofs,giving the appearance of four town houses, but the facades are all the same giving theappearance of a continuous building. Differing colour schemes and design details for the front ofeach "house" would look better.

As others have pointed out, the proposed flats are too close to the neighbouring LibraryApartments.

We only get one go at developing a better city for several generations to come, so it'simportant to get it right. While the site is clearly in need of investment and development, this highdensity application, offering no parking and considerable downsides to neighbours, while doingnothing to solve the housing crisis in the city isn't the right proposal.

This proposed development is too cramped and too big for the site. There is no parking provisionon the basis that it's next to a bus stop, but the poor state of public transport in the city makes itvanishingly unlikely that buyers won't have cars - a lot of cars. Berkeley Road already suffers fromoverparking, dangerous parking, speeding cars, angry commuters and high levels of pollution,particularly at the bottom end, due to shoppers, workers and leisure users using it as a free carpark and its use as a commuter rat run, and one of the few streets in the area wide enough to takeHGVs. There is often a traffic stand off in the street, which is heavily used by children going to StBons, the primary school at the top of the road, and older children on their way to Redland Green,as well as other pedestrians. Adding substantially to the road clutter and selfish parking issues ishighly dangerous, not least because of the emissions from idling cars.

No social housing provision does nothing to add to the mix in the area. or to address the very realhousing problems in this city.

Finally, there are already obstructions on the pavement outside the site. When the work proceeds- I hope in a manner with future generations rather than pure profit in mind - there must beadequate measures to ensure safe passage on the pavement whilst it's carried out.

The proposed development for 17 flats is too high density for the site and will impactnegatively upon all residences on the lower portion of Berkeley Road as well as impacting on theprivacy and light of the flats above the library on gloucester road.

This junction/corner is already dangerous and parking on barkely road is haphazard at best.

There will be particular pressure on parking on a road which is already usually fully-parked, andthis will render the road and the junction even more dangerous.

This proposed development is unsuitable for this site.The previous application was made for 9 flats, which in that form had severely negative impact onthe existing neighbours, local residents and users of the roads and street. The revised applicationis for almost double that amount - now 17 residences. The proposed development for these 17flats is too high density, overbearing and oppressive for impacting negatively upon all residenceson the lower portion of Berkeley Road especially the immediately adjacent property, as well asadversely impacting on the privacy and light of the Library Apartment flats above the library.A number of the proposed new flats will look directly and oppressively into the Apartments andbalcony space from only a matter of several feet's distance, with the subsequent loss of light andprivacy adversely impacting quality of life

I also object to the proposals to redevelop the remainder of the site on the grounds ofoverdevelopment, and very poor quality living conditions for the new dwellingsThe newly proposed flat block is both poorly planned and far too deep, overbearing to 4A BerkeleyRoad and overlooking and overbearing to the Library flats and their existing balconies. Severalflats are single aspect and north facing. The elevations of the proposed flats have large areas ofred brick, which is not typical of Berkeley Road; a random variety of natural render colours wouldbe both more in keeping with the local area and far less oppressive for the enclosed garden areaat the rear and for the outlook of the library flats. The proposed flanking windows at first floor levelto the front/east elevation of the Chapel are unnecessarily large and bedroom 2 of flat 16 isextremely overglazed.

This junction/corner is already dangerous and parking on Berkley Road both sides, Somerville

Road and Gloucester Road is haphazard at best. There will be particular pressure on parking on aroad which is already nearly always fully-parked, and this will render the road and the junctioneven more dangerous. The addition of 17 to 34 additional potential vehicles or bicycles or electricscooters or pedestrians added to the multiple exits to the petrol station, the traffic lights on thisbusy junction and pedestrian crossing make this an even more highly dangerous situation. Therewill be a increased danger to life and injury to pedestrians, cyclists, scooters and drivers.Berkeley Road is just outside the existing RPZone and consequently already severely blighted bycommuters parking their cars making it difficult or impossible for residents without their own off-street parking to park their existing cars, and parking across drives is an increasing nuisance. Thisdevelopment will add potentially 17 to even 34 more cars to an already serious problem to thefurther detriment of local residents

It is unreasonable to propose 17 no. new dwellings with no provision for resident parking or evencar club vehicle/s. Bishopston has been campaigning for a Residents Parking Zone for yearswithout success. The congestion and pollution on Berkeley Road is now at an unacceptable level.This proposed development will only serve to make matters worse.

This proposed development is unsuitable for this site.The previous application was made for 9 flats with severely negative impact on the existingneighbours, local residents and users of the roads and street. The revised application is for almostdouble that amount - 17 residences. The proposed development is too high density, overbearingand oppressive, impacting negatively upon all residences on the lower portion of Berkeley Roadespecially the immediately adjacent property, as well as adversely impacting on the privacy andlight of the Library Apartment flats. A number of the proposed new flats will look directly andoppressively into the Apartments and balcony space from only a matter of several feet's distance,with the subsequent loss of light and privacy adversely impacting quality of lifeI also object to the proposals to redevelop the remainder of the site on the grounds ofoverdevelopment, and very poor quality living conditions for the new dwellingsThe newly proposed flat block is both poorly planned and far too deep, overbearing to 4A BerkeleyRoad and overlooking and overbearing to the Library flats and their existing balconies. Severalflats are single aspect and north facing. The elevations of the proposed flats have large areas ofred brick, which is not typical of Berkeley Road; a random variety of natural render colours wouldbe both more in keeping with the local area and far less oppressive for the enclosed garden areaat the rear and for the outlook of the library flats. The proposed flanking windows at first floor levelto the front/east elevation of the Chapel are unnecessarily large and bedroom 2 of flat 16 isextremely overglazed.

This junction/corner is already dangerous and parking on Berkley Road both sides, SomervilleRoad and Gloucester Road is haphazard at best. There will be particular pressure on parking on aroad which is already nearly always fully-parked, and this will render the road and the junction

even more dangerous. The addition of 17 to 34 additional potential vehicles or bicycles or electricscooters or pedestrians added to the multiple exits to the petrol station, the traffic lights on thisbusy junction and pedestrian crossing make this an even more highly dangerous situation. Therewill be a increased danger to life and injury to pedestrians, cyclists, scooters and drivers.Berkeley Road is just outside the existing RPZone and consequently already severely blighted bycommuters parking their cars making it difficult or impossible for residents without their own off-street parking to park their existing cars, and parking across drives is an increasing nuisance. Thisdevelopment will add potentially 17 to even 34 more cars to an already serious problem to thefurther detriment of local residentsIt is unreasonable to propose 17 no. new dwellings with no provision for resident parking or evencar club vehicle/s. Bishopston has been campaigning for a Residents Parking Zone for yearswithout success. The congestion and pollution on Berkeley Road is now at an unacceptable level.This proposed development will only serve to make matters worse.

This proposed development is likely to be too cramped and too big for the site. On thebasis a previous application was made for 9 flats it is unclear why so many more (17) are can bejustified for approval. Presumably this is simply for commercial reasons.The current proposals are likely to be overbearing and oppressive for the residents of the bottomof Berkeley Road closest to the site. I understand that they will also overlook some of the libraryflats.There is inadequate provision for greenery of the overall landscape, appropriate for the edge of aresidential area. A guaranteed commitment to a garden at the back and hedges at the front shouldbe provided.As regards the lack of parking within the proposals, whilst this may be laudable in principle, it istotally unrealistic. In practice it will lead to much more parking on Berkeley Road in an area wherethere is already much non-resident parking on pavements and which often causes obstruction atthe junction with the A38 (there being no apparent enforcement of parking restrictions close to thecorner). Berkeley Road urgently needs residents' parking as the current situation is hazardous tothe local community and in particular the many children who walk to the various neighbourhoodschools. This proposal will add to these serious problems.Finally, there must, if the work proceeds in some form, be adequate measures to ensure safepassage on the pavement whilst it's carried out.

I have been a resident of Egerton Road since 1982 and for many years providedplanning advice to the Bishopston Society. I am relieved that the existing chapel is being retainedand restored, as a prominent Character Building in a prominent location within the GloucesterRoad Conservation Area. However, I object to the proposals to redevelop the remainder of the siteon the grounds of overdevelopment, poor quality living conditions for the new dwellings andoverlooking and loss of privacy for the existing flats over the new Bishopston Library. The newlyproposed flat block is both poorly planned and far too deep, overbearing to 4A Berkeley Road andoverlooking and overbearing to the Library flats and their existing balconies. Several flats aresingle aspect and north facing. The elevations of the proposed flats have large areas of red brick,which is not typical of Berkeley Road; a random variety of natural render colours would be bothmore in keeping with the local area and far less oppressive for the enclosed garden area at therear and for the outlook of the library flats. The proposed flanking windows at first floor level to thefront/east elevation of the Chapel are unnecessarily large and bedroom 2 of flat 16 is wildlyoverglazed.

It is unreasonable to propose 17 no. new dwellings with no provision for resident parking or evencar club vehicle/s. Bishopston has been campaigning for a Residents Parking Zone for yearswithout success. The congestion and pollution on Berkeley Road is now at an unacceptable level.This proposed development will only serve to make matters worse.

There are many inconsistencies within the drawings, some even within the same sheet . Thedrawings should be complete and consistent before permission can be granted.

In a city where affordable housing is sorely lacking, I think it's a disgrace that thedeveloper is trying to negate their section 106 obligations - they should be providing 40%affordable housing, in line with Bristol City Council planning policy. I object in the strongestpossible terms.

I have studied a lot of the plans, photographs and history of the site, and think that theproposed development will be an improvement to the site and the area.

The proposed development for 17 flats is too high density for the site and will impactnegatively upon all residences on the lower portion of Berkeley Road.

There will be particular pressure on parking on a road which is already usually fully-parked, andthis will render the road and the junction even more dangerous.

A scaled back proposal would be more suitable - indeed the original planning application was for 9or 10 flats - and this would be more in keeping with the residential area, less intrusive toimmediately adjoining neighbours, and would ease pressure on parking, traffic flow and roadhazards.

The number of apartments has been increased from the the original proposal to 17, withproposed parking removed. Berkeley Road is just outside an existing RPZ and consequentlyalready blighted by commuters parking their cars making it difficult or impossible for residentswithout their own off-street parking to park their cars, and where parking across drives is anincreasing nuisance. This development will add 17 more cars to an already serious problem to thefurther detriment of local residents. The number of apartments should be scaled back to 9 withparking for their cars reinstated on the site.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am a resident in the and object to these apartments being built.

It will block our all sunlight and have a big impact on the current residents.

I will be moving from next door in September. Since I care about community and justiceI will be objecting. This will affect the residents living around the area hugely. This is for greedyprofit and non of these will be affordable will they? You know that, I know that, everyone knowsthat. And you also know how wrong that is. You also know this is the kind of thing that makes oursituation worse. You know what you could do to help the current housing issues and crisis. Justbecause we're in Bristol and in this wealthy area doesn't mean you have to add or exasperate theproblem. You know what the right thing to do is. And it's not build more light sucking, disruptive,polluting, unjust, unfairly expensive, eye soar, unsustainable, unnecessary buildings. You alreadyknow this. You, I assume are intelligent and know the facts and probably know the solutions butmoney is power right, greed wins. Well done. Hope you are happy with the mark you've left on thecity, on the world, for the future generations, perhaps your future grandkids. Do the right thing.

Hi Charlotte,

I thought that this matter had been decided, but it is still showing on the Portal aspending. I was passing by yesterday and noticed that Heras fencing has been erected.What is the latest position?

I also noticed that the poor recently-planted street tree we have been fighting to saveover and over again was still looking knocked about and vulnerable...

I see that the AIA (AIA) is showing it as being removed and replaced a little further upthe road.

I can't see any tree officer (Planning and Parks) comments and wonder if they havebeen approached for comment? I would be very interested to hear their thoughts aboutthis proposal and how any future tree might properly be protected.

I wonder if steps need to be taken now to try to protect it in the meantime pending afinal decision?

I was hoping that revised plans would solve the problems in the previous proposals butin some ways this is worse.

A communal bin store so far from the street is unlikely to work well, this risks bins being left out.Bin stores in front of the building would be more suitable.The plans propose more parking spaces for the retail outlets than they would reasonably need. Airquality at this location is poor (latest measurements published by BCC show NO2 Annual MeanConcentration 38.3 µg/m3 (40 µg/m3 is the legal maximum). Parking spaces should be reduced todiscourage use of private cars.The north-facing ground floor flats only have windows which face onto the proposed parkingspaces, this design should be rejected due to air pollution and noise pollution and privacy issues.More green landscaping in front of the building on Berkeley Road would fit in better with the rest ofthe street.Parking spaces 1 to 6 should be replaced by cycle and bin stores and green landscaping, with alow front wall adjacent to the pavement.

This revised design is overbearing on library flats, especially the second floor and the south-facing balconies.

Neither the adjacent library development nor the Applegreen filling station opposite have fulfilledprevious planning commitments to plant trees. I'd like to see some solid mechanism for ensuringthat all green landscaping features included in this application are delivered promptly.

If the pavement is to be closed for many months then provision for pedestrians should be made,it's not sensible for pedestrians to have to cross to the North side of Berkeley Road and then crossback again to avoid a closed stretch pavement, especially with the Applegreen entrance and thetraffic light junction so close.

The Noise impact statement provided is "Proposed Refrigeration Plant 55 North St, Bristol".Please provide the correct noise impact statement to close neighbours, including myself.

The plans propose to remove what's left of the tree which my neighbours and I sponsored and toplant a replacement tree a few metres further up in front of their parking space 1. I don't think thiswill stop the replacement tree being damaged by vehicles. I'd like more effective physicalprotection for the replacement tree, such as discreet concrete bollards, this should be provided asa condition of planning.The proposed tree position is very close to the kerb and there's a danger that due to the camber ofthe road high-sided vehicles parking at the kerbside will lean over the pavement and damage thetree. This is even without wheels on the pavement, which is normal practice for vehicles in thisstreet. The risk of damage might be reduced if the tree can be positioned a little further into thepavement from the kerb. The pavement is plenty wide enough to support this.

We would cautiously support this scheme, with a couple of significant caveats.

Given that the acceptance of the general quantum of development was approved with the previousapplication 20/00022/F, we note that this application reduces the ground floor commercial areaand replaces it with more residential flats, making the entire Berkeley Road frontage residential.This is a welcome move for those of us living at the eastern end of the street.

We think that the addition of the garden area is a positive change as well, provided it is well-maintained in perpetuity, and that there is a mechanism written into the development approval forachieving this. Having witnessed the development of the adjacent library where a tree was meantto be the centrepiece of their rear courtyard, but that tree has still to appear many years later,we've seen first-hand the realities of plans not coming to fruition.

Similarly, putting the bins and cycle store to the rear gives a good-sized area for these facilities;our misgivings here would be how well the bins and recycling area would be managed over timeso that the alleyway leading to them doesn't become noisy or unsightly. We see that there is somesort of hedging along the boundary wall with us / 4A Berkeley Road and would like some clarity asto how substantial that will be, and how it will be maintained. It is, however, a welcome addition tothe proposals.

We also can't find details of the plants / hedges being proposed so would welcome dialogue andcommitments that these will maximise the opportunity we have here to soften the landscape andimprove the flora. Finally, the previous application confirmed the use of a "sedum roof" on the

ground floor extension. We assume that is what is being proposed above the cycle and bin storeon these plans, but it is not stipulated specifically. We know that the applicant is keen to make it anattractive area to ensure the flats are a desirable place to live but would like firm guarantees aboutkeeping the green spaces and general appearance in line with any approved plans, should the sitebe sold on in future.

We have strong reservations about one change though. This is the addition of balconies on thesecond floor of the development. Having previously and very amicably discussed these newproposals with the applicant, we were under the impression that there would be no outwardchanges to the south and west elevations. Unfortunately, the addition of balconies at the topstorey is a significant infringement on the privacy of both the properties at the Eastern end ofBerkeley Road, and the flats atop the Bishopston Library. For us at No. 4, the balcony with 1.8mscreen for Flat 5, and the extended balcony for this flat and nos. 7 & 8, is unacceptable. This isespecially the case because a previous concession had notched back the massing of Flats 1 and5 so as to pull them back from our property and reduce the local massing. Putting the balconiesback in goes against the spirit of what has been agreed with the previous Case Officer and is asomewhat exasperating move on the part of the architect...

There is also the issue of parking, as has been mentioned in other comments. Whilst weappreciate the Council's intentions by not offering parking to properties that sit so close to a mainbus route, this must be proportionate and realistic. And, when 17 new flats are being considered, itis neither. There will inevitably be more vehicles to park, making an already unbearable situationon Berkeley Road even worse. Please can something be done about this, and some commonsense prevail? We see that in document entitled "Community Statement" the following ismentioned towards the end: "The current approval retains all the car parking for the retail use. It isimagined further discussions will be held with Bristol City Council on this matter."

We would implore the council to consider some of the parking spaces set aside for the residentsinstead of for the customers of the retail space, especially as the latter is now considerablyreduced in scale on these new proposals. It is otherwise inevitable that this will happen anywayand, with no controls or demarcation in place, the parking situation could become frustrating andconfusing for everyone, as well as forcing more cars onto the already congested kerbside ofBerkeley Road. We are aware that the applicant would also support this but is hindered by Councilpolicy at present.

Finally, we note that it is mentioned that the pavement will be closed for 18 months alongside theconstruction. This is an unacceptably long time for such a busy stretch of pavement to be closed,forcing pedestrians to cross the dangerous area around the petrol station entrance opposite.There are many families with young children in this area and the wide pavements alongside thesite are essential for everyone's safety. Either the construction time should be limited (hard toenforce) or some meaningful access allowed along the pavement adjacent to the site.

In general, however, and given the previous approvals, we are supportive of this proposal and arekeen to see it completed and the unsightly scrap metal yard adjacent to our property removed. Wewarmly thank the applicant for keeping us informed of the new changes (barring the balconies wewish to see removed) and look forward to working with him to make the construction process asharmonious for the neighbours as possible and would be insistent on strict time limits for theconstruction work throughout the week and avoiding weekends.

Ben and Naomi Smith4 Berkeley Road, BS7 8HE

Shoppers, workers and residents already jostle for parking on Berkeley Road. Adevelopment with no provision for parking, and which will potentially bring some twenty to thirtyadditional cars to the road is not acceptable. Building entirely foreseeable pinch points intobrownfield development, with no solutions and no mitigation, serves both existing and potentialresidents very poorly indeed.

I am also concerned that the proposal to close pedestrian access to the Berkeley Road/GloucesterRoad junction for a prolonged period is dangerous and unacceptable.

It is ridiculous to think that 17 new properties will have no vehicles associated withthem, so the council need to think about some provision, even if it is 'car share' spaces! Eventhose kern to walk/cycle/scoot will have occasional need for vehicle use and/or deliveries, visitorsetc. The addition of second floor balconies is unacceptable too, given that they'll directly overlookso many existing properties. A temporary walkway or speed limiting measures (eg speed bumps)needs to be incorporated for pedestrian safety during the works.

Whilst it may be too late to object to the development as a whole it seems to be far toodense (17 flats) for the limited space available. The impact on surrounding flats and housesappears excessive, privacy invaded by second floor balconies and extending the height of what isproposed.

I am particularly concerned at the inevitable increase in traffic and parking in an area alreadyblighted by residents' and visitors' cars and delivery vans. Failure to provide any parking as anintegral part of the plans is a failure to acknowledge the responsibility to protect the existingenvironment as much as possible, and not to allow it further to deteriorate.

In addition, if the pavement is to be removed for an extended period whilst works are ongoingthere must be a serious risk of injuries to those walking to and from the Gloucester Road. To helpto address this the council should hasten its consideration of substantial measures such as theincorporation of a low traffic neighbourhood at this point to the west of the A38 which would bothrestrict through traffic on Berkeley Road and promote the Mayor's stated wider goals of a healthiercity.

We are generally supportive of adding further residential units on the ground floorinstead of commercial as this is much more in keeping with Berkeley Road.

In addition, we are supportive of the design of the North elevation with the main entrance set awayfrom 4 Berkeley Road. We welcome the soft landscaping at the front of the flats (shown on thefloor plans) but this soft landscaping is missing from the North Elevation and street scenedrawings - this needs to be corrected to clearly add in the soft landscaping.

However, we object to south and west facing balconies on the first and second floors, which willgive rise to substantial loss of amenity to neighbouring properties in the library apartments and onBerkeley Road (both overlooking and noise). Nevertheless, we welcome the 1.8m frosted glassprivacy screens (as noted on the floor plans), although the elevations clearly do not show them toscale at 1.8m which appears to be an error that needs to be corrected.

It is of utmost importance to ensure all soft landscaping is clearly specified within any consentalong with obligations in relation to upkeep. In particular a full height hedge along the entire Westboundary of the development, plus mature trees at the rear. We note that the library developmentplanning condition included a mature tree, which in fact never materialised.

17 flats will make the already dangerous parking situation on Berkeley Road even worse; it isunrealistic to assume that the occupants will not have cars.

While in general support, as close neighbours, we object to the addition of second floorbalconies which will overlook our property.

I would not like any balconies above ground floor that would overlook our property'sfront bedroom and lounge

The proposed development has not taken proper account of its impact on theneighbourhood and I can not support it.

First, the car parking situation is woeful, with limited or no provision for 17 residences. Car parkingpressure will be increased on the surrounding streets (perhaps adding 25 vehicles to be parkedovernight?), leading to overparked and more dangerous roadways. Berkeley Road is alreadyoverly full with cars. This proposal takes no account of its impact on the neighbourhood.

Second the high density provision of housing is not in keeping with the surrounding housing stock- and given that this is a third round of planning application, with the number of proposedapartments increasing on each round - it appears that there is little concern for surroundingresidents.

Third, a consequence of this high density plan is that outside space is being delivered throughinward-facing balconies, which seems particularly inappropriate for the development and take noaccount of the impact on neighbours.

The proposal does restore a dilapidated building, which is commendable - but to replace it 17residences is excessive and profiteering.

As a nearby resident I object the proposal. Our currently private windows to our flat areimmediately opposite where windows will overlook, which will cause us loss of light/overshadowingand a massive loss of privacy.

I object! This building would overlook our flats and give us no privacy. I support aground floor development or development using the current structure but anything higher wouldimpact our privacy.

I object in the strongest terms. I support the detail and comments from " BishopstonCotham and Redland Street Scene Group 5 Grove Park Bristol" 16 Aug.As a neighbour and resident of a 3rd floor Library Apartment our home faces directly onto theproposed site. The proposed apartment windows would have an absolutely direct and substantialeyeline/view into our home and sole living space. This is the same for 9 Library Apartments and anumber of other existing Library apartments -there will be severe loss of privacy to us as existingresidents. Five of our windows face directly onto the 'tower' of the existing unconverted buildingwhich will have windows facing directly into ours.. We will have zero privacy in our sole living area.There will be an increase of noise levels, pollution and intrusion. This includes noise from plannedrear bin stores. These factors will adversely impact our mental health and physical health. This willalso invade the privacy of a number of other homes in Berkley Road. For any third floor residentsof the proposed development they will have no privacy either. The quality of living is extremelypoor. Our windows are able to look directly and intrusively into the second floor windows of thenew development - which will give these residents no privacy and impact their quality of life andmental health.Parking is problematic in Berkley Road, Gloucester Road and adjoining streets. There isinadequate parking provision for the size of development. It is unrealistic and disingenuous tosuggest residents will all cycle/walk. The location of the development is at an extremely busyjunction and Berkley Road is frequently used as a rat run. The traffic lights outside, with exit/entryto petrol station opposite and frequent pedestrian usage to cross all position the development of17 apartments (17-24 vehicle usage) as one with high potential for accident/injury/death.Pollution and emissions, noise pollution have not been given adequate consideration by thedevelopers. The increase in the number of apartments - with poorly designed, badly lit residences

will result in sub standard accommodation, unhealthy living conditions, for potential residents andmultiple adverse impacts on the existing residents.This is straightforward profiteering and greed with no regard for existing residents, locality andneighbourhood, or for potential future residents of any development - and an abdication ofresponsibility for the quality of life, health and wellbeing and physical safety of any of the peopleconcerned.I note there was a wildlife survey in 2019 however since then during the pandemic there has beena significant increase of birds in the vicinity, and their use of nests, roosts and wildlife behaviourhas changed and increased.Additionally there has been NO CONSULTATION with any neighbours or residents or the existingcommunity.

I understand that there will be no parking provision for the 17 new flats in this proposeddevelopment. Even if the new residents are keen to cycle, walk and use public transport,realistically many of them are likely to own cars and other motorised vehicles. This lower end ofBerkeley Road already has a problem with parking being tight for current residents, especiallyduring working hours and popular shopping times.Some residents, like myself , have drives to park on. With the congested parking, sometimes closeup to the drives, it can be extremely difficult to see oncoming traffic when attempting to pull outonto the road. Unfortunately Berkeley Road is a busy rat run. Sometimes the traffic exceeds the20mph limit. When pulling out onto the road there is the risk of not being able to see oncomingtraffic , including cyclists and scooters, coming quickly down the hill. I think additional cars parkedon the road could add to this risk.I would therefore request that consideration is given to providing some parking space for the newdevelopment.

I agree with the comments from the "Bishopston Cotham and Redland Street scenegroup 5 Grove Park Bristol." Any development needs to fit in with the locality. It needs to berethought on design, density, and amenities, waste generation and disposal. What is the priorityhere, business or residential? This is not a good hybrid, nor should it be. Traffic and Parkingissues are not resolved by the developers, and no one will cycle to and from this apartmentcomplex, but park vehicles in the local streets adding to pollution and degrade the already fragilelocal environment. The development as planned will overlook and intrude onto flats already built,i.e. the library apartments. I was not informed of the proposal nor have been contacted in anyway.

I strongly object to the plans to build 17 new apartments on this site. My residencedirectly overlooks the area planned for building and would be negatively affected by these plans.The new flats and their balconies would have line of sit into my apartment which would have asubstantial impact on my privacy. The new external balconies facing my flat and the neighbouringflats would have create potential noise disturbance and even greater intrusion on privacy. Theproposed first second and first story building extension would also have a huge negative impact onthe flats at the back of our building, blocking out light, views, and further intrusion on privacy.Overall the plans take no consideration of existing residents surrounding the development or howthey would impact on us or our homes.

I do not object to the current structure being used as retail unit or converted into residences asstands, however extending the height of the building is not acceptable.

The Panel recognises that there is an existing planning consent for this site and thatexternally only relatively minor changes to that consent are proposed.

The principal contribution of this building to the Conservation Area is its form and massing. Theproposed new dormers on the east side would interrupt the sloping roof on the Gloucester Roadelevation and harm the building's appearance and should be omitted.

I can't see any parking provision for 17 new residences in these plans. Currently there isfree all day on-street parking on Berkeley Road (but not on this section of Gloucester Road), usedby residents, shoppers, workers and tradesmen. It is adequate during the evening and atweekends, although there are many pressure points during the day. Failing to make any parkingprovision in this development will mean that the parking issues currently experienced by existingresidents will never be resolvable.I'm also concerned at the consultation process for this latest application. Neighbours have notbeen informed.

BCR SSG note that the principle of residential development on this site is alreadyestablished by the approved application 20/00022/F. This revised proposal will createunacceptable standards of residential accommodation and we object to the application.The change from a smaller number of individual units with waste and recycling storage on the frontof the building to a much larger number of flats with a poorly-located bin store at the rear of thissite is not acceptable. Good management of waste and recycling is important to reduce thenegative impact of densification of residential areas; location of the bins and containers so thatthey are easily accessible will reduce the likelihood of bins and boxes being left on streets and offly-tipping. This is a health consideration as well as a convenience issue as set out in DM32.We object to the retention of car parking bays in front of the residential accommodation forbusiness use given the much-reduced floor area of the showroom and the moving of goodsstorage off site. This area should be used to make a more appropriate setting for ground floorresidential accommodation as a buffer area from the street with appropriate planting includingsmall trees, and to allow location of waste and recycling and cycle stores at the front of thebuilding.This location at this busy junction is not ideal for residential accommodation, particularly at groundfloor level where air quality from particulates from traffic is poor, so more consideration toproviding a standard of accommodation which does not contribute to mental and physical healthissues for future residents must be given. DM14.Relocating the waste and recycling storage to the Berkeley Road front of the building will free upthe ground level area at the rear of the building to create a private amenity space for the residentsof the flats. Inclusion of tree and shrub planting will improve the air quality for residents at this busyjunction where vehicles wait at traffic lights. Access to the rear open space from the residential

accommodation is poor. Consideration to creating a direct access from the hall and stairwayshould be given.The depth of the proposed residential building means that a number of North-facing single-aspectflats are created. This is unsatisfactory and contrary to the provisions of Policy DM 29 which statesthat new residential development should provide dual aspect where possible particularly whereone of the aspects is north facing.The proposed layout includes a particularly unacceptable flat at ground floor level which is singleaspect north facing with bedrooms facing towards the street which does not comply with aim foractive frontages, natural surveillance, and appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight. DM29. The outlook for residents is onto the parking bays for visitors to the shop so windows will lookonto visitors and delivery vehicles, which will be coming and going from the parking bays all day.This will exacerbate the already polluted air. The proposed development will fail to promote andenable a healthy living environment DM 14.The 2nd floor level flats in the roof of the chapel above the retained showroom section are verypoor-quality residential accommodation. The narrow dormer windows with solid cheeks will give avery low level of natural light and ventilation and one of the two units is another single aspectnorth-facing unit. The other unit faces east onto Gloucester Road and again is a single aspect unit.The proposed roof lights will not make up for this poor-quality lighting and ventilation provision northe restricted views available from the narrow dormer windows. We note that one of these flats arealready included in the approved scheme. We cannot see how this conforms with DM14 or DM29.