The proposed development backs on to a row of family houses in Manor Road. Thesehave small gardens but are very pleasantly quiet and private because where there are flats abovethe Gloucester Road shops, any windows are set well back and gardens are little used. (The oneexception is the Chimp House garden, which is used noisily some evenings but is covered, so atleast maintains privacy.) A small number of mature trees adds to the privacy and encourages birdsand some wildlife in this urban area.

This development is not remotely in keeping with the above:

1. The windows of the upper flat would be closer to the neighbouring Manor Road houses thanany others in the parade and would encroach on their privacy.

2. In particular the roof terrace would overlook all of the neighbouring gardens.

3. The flats above the Gloucester Road shops are typically rented to short-term residents whoselifestyle is likely to contrast with that of the neighbouring families on Manor Road and could causetensions.

4. One of the precious mature trees would need to be removed in order to build these flats.

I would ask you to please reject this application on the following grounds:

Loss of amenity - elevated position of roof terrace gives reduced privacy in overlooked residentialgardens. This is not an imagined impact - I have a similar roof terrace overlooking my rear garden.When residents are using the roof terrace we are effectively unable to use our rear garden due toprivacy concerns. Design statement states no additional overlooking - I strongly dispute this. Thereis zero overlooking currently. The plan shows a large elevated roof terrace within ~6m ofboundary. Suggest Juliet balcony windows in the upper bedrooms & no roof terrace would be acompromise.

Loss of amenity - noise from elevated roof terrace & inevitable intensification of activity in the reargarden. This is not an imagined impact - I have a similar roof terrace overlooking my rear garden.When residents are using the roof terrace the noise is extremely disturbing due to the raisedposition & noise radiation pattern. We are effectively unable to use our rear garden on theseoccasions. I fear a similar situation for immediate neighbours of this development. There iscurrently little to no activity in the rear garden area of 234 Gloucester Rd, so any increase inaccess will be detrimental.

Loss of amenity - noise from Air Source heat pumps. These appear to be positioned on the roof ofthe GFF (although not shown in elevations)This will cause noise disturbance to immediateneighbours due to elevated position. Needs to be positioned at ground level. This is not animagined impact - I have a similar heat pump mounted in an elevated position overlooking mygarden. It is intrusive when in operation.

Loss of existing outdoor amenity space - new ground floor flat is build over more than half existingrear hard landscape patio area. Design statement states that it's a small development- in fact thedepth (& therefore floor area) of the ground floor building is approximately doubled and wholewidth of plot is built upon. It's approx 200% increase in floor area of GFF and 50% increase inFFF. Not small.

Visually dominating & overbearing nature of the development - large 2 storey development intorear garden areas is without precedent in this block of buildings. It will be detrimental to theimmediate neighbourhood.

New flat roof covering the whole building is also completely out of keeping with any rear elevationof the row of shops/flats in the block. This will be a major change to the visual appearance of thesurroundings & is without precedent.

Design statement mentions a nearby relevant granted application (226 Gloucester Rd) I don't thinkthis is relevant - it's a single storey, limited width extension with a pitched roof. Entirely different tothis application which is double storey / flat roof / full width)

Poor safety considerations - extremely low barrier/balustrade to deter people on the roof terracewalking on the small adjacent single skin roof where the Air Source Heat Pumps are located.(Falling off / falling through or damaging the single skin) This is not an imagined impact - ithappened from the roof terrace near to my home.

Poor design - room stacking causing noise for GFF residents - roof terrace is above GFFbedroom.

Poor design - sustainability statement (& developer website) stresses use of sustainable &environmentally friendly construction. No construction details on any plan although use of upvcwindows & doors is marked. Clearly unsustainable. Suggest wooden frames/doors.

Poor biodiversity impact - Loss of large mature tree on the boundary of 232/234 Gloucester Rd.Not shown on any plan. Shown in the aerial photograph in the sustainability statement whichstates that existing planting will be retained! Clearly not. No tree replacement plan. No mention ofremoval of tree in design plan although it is shown on the rear elevation photograph.

Provision of parking - The plans essentially make 2 residential dwellings from one. Threebedrooms from one. There is no parking provision for the extra residents. Permanent parking isnot available immediately outside the property. Huge pressure on parking in adjacent streets dueto existing residents/shoppers/HM Prison visitors & workers. There is no guarantee or compulsionfor new residents to use sustainable travel therefore the development creates unreasonabledemand for additional on-street parking.

Poor plan quality - extent & boundaries of adjoining building 232 Gloucester Rd is inaccurate on allrelevant plans. Unclear how the proposed development handles the party wall with 236 & 232Gloucester Rd.

Intrusive design. No associated parking

We are considering this matter and note that the plans proposed are likely to result inthe loss of at least one tree and to impact others nearby, and yet no arboricultural evidence hasbeen published.

Section 23 of the Planning Application Requirements Local List 1st December 2017(https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33956/Planning+applications+local+list+of+requirements/cb90237a-1980-4d7a-b1c3-88fa56326e3b) requires that "An arboricultural report must besubmitted where there are trees within a proposed application site, or on land adjacent to anapplication site (including trees in neighbouring gardens and street trees), that could influence orbe affected by the development, including works such as site access, service routes and sitecompounds. Information will be required on which trees are to be removed and retained, themeans of protecting those to be retained during demolition and construction works andcompensatory planting for removed trees" as a prerequisite before such an application can bevalidated.

As this has not been done, this application should now be withdrawn and the applicant required toresubmit it with the required arboricultural evidence.

If there is indeed such evidence available, please provide it and publish it on the planning portal.

I'm concerned about 3 aspects of the plan: the building extends nearly to the backboundary, eliminating the garden; the terrace is raised; the only barrier to the occupantsoverlooking neighbouring residents' gardens appears to be a low transparent (glass?) one. If built,it will increase the density of the built environment.

This will greatly finish the privacy afforded to the houses of 45 and 47 and theneighbouring houses as the raised areas will look over their gardens and into their internal spaces.The appearance of the property from the plans also shows it to be very out of character for thearea in terms of design. It will add to massing and overdevelopment of the area and be a nuisanceto neighbours and their privacy.

Object to the planning application on the following grounds- It represents an over development for the site and the area- The floor to ceiling glass and roof terraces is an invasion of privacy to the immediate neighboursand as such they will be unable to enjoy their gardens- The development will encroach on the neighbouring properties right to light- No provision has been made for parking

I strongly object to this application. It is a gross over development of the site.Neighbours all along the rear of the property on my road will lose privacy as well as a loss of light.There is absolutely no need in a built up area like this to have a high level roof terrace facingditectly into the bedrooms and bathrooms of people's homes. The terrace is only a few metresaway from the houses backing onto it - it's simply unacceptable.

Aside from privacy concerns the roof terrace is likely to generate noise from residents using it -due to the height of the terrace this noise will not be deafened by surrounding walls and trees andso will prevent the neighbouring residents from private enjoyment of their own homes.

Furthermore as a neighbour and avid conservationist I believe there are actually bats nesting inthe lofts of those houses along this stretch of Gloucester Road. Such a development could harman endangered, protected species unless the developer can provide assurances otherwise.

I would urge the planners to Consider the detrimental effect of this application on lives of theneighbouring residents and local wildlife if it were to be permitted.

I strongly object to this application.The design encourages over development of the site which brings with it loss of privacy and lightto those immediate neighbours.The neighbourhood is blighted by a number of roof terraces which intrude into neighbours livesand another is simply not needed.Currently there is a large tree on site which contributes to the clean air and is also a heaven forwildlife, this will be cut down and removed as part of the development.The site application says there is little scope to enhance biodiversity, don't over develop and youwill have biodiversity.

I have no objections in principle to developing the rear of this shop but there are someserious concerns which need to be addressed, particularly with the rear first floor elevation:The rooftop terrace and the first floor windows overlook the opposing gardens & houses in a waythat is not comparable with other residential flats on this paradeThe likely demographic of the inhabitants is going to be young renters or owners who naturally willwant to enjoy themselves at some point. The first floor terrace will inevitably create noise nuisanceduring summer months. There are limited natural noise barriers between Manor Rd & this paradeand the sound echoes between the houses and flats and is highly disruptive. There are alreadynoise problems from the neighbouring Chimp House and other flats along this parade. This isclearly a source of future potential neighbourly disputes and this has not been considered in thecurrent design.Construction will require the removal of a mature tree in an urban environment. This is highlyundesirable reduction of biodiversity in an area that needs to increase thisLack of any parking provision will place extra pressure on Manor Rd street spaces. Manor Rdparking is already highly pressurised from residential use, p+rison commuters and those parkingto access shops on Gloucester Rd. No amount of cycle spaces is going to help with this.

I believe there is no precedent in this parade of shops for this amount of domestic space and alsoconversion into not one but 2 flats. I believe this represents overdevelopment in at least thenumber of flats proposed.

- The application seeks permission to turn the existing dwelling into two dwelling.

- The proposed scheme does not respect the existing context and the block pattern of the area(see attached photos looking at the site from 47 Manor Road) and will have a negative impact onthe privacy of the adjoining households.

- The proposed balcony and the floor to ceiling windows of the first floor flat will be overlooking thegardens of the neighbouring properties, as well as their internal spaces. Currently, there is novisual intrusion from the existing dwelling to the neighbouring properties since the existing kitchen(located on the ground floor) and the bathroom (on the first floor), are sufficiently set back from theback gardens of the adjoining households and do not have direct access to the back of theproperty. However, the proposed two dwellings, with the balcony, will be too close to the adjacentproperties, resulting in unacceptable overlooking and invasion of privacy. One residential dwellingrather than two would rid the need for the balcony and its subsequent invasion of privacy.

- The proposed extension will have a massing that is not found in the immediate context (seeattached photos looking at the site from 47 Manor Road) this will have a negative impact on theamenity and on the existing open views of the neighbours.

The Chimp House, a party venue next door to the proposal site, causes very significant noisepollution on Friday and Saturday nights, severely impairing the rights of the long-establishedresidential dwellings on Manor Road to enjoy peaceful evenings, or for (more often than not,children's) bedrooms at the rear of their properties to afford sleep. Enjoying the gardens on Fridayand Saturday evenings is not an option. The proposal constitutes a further eating away at the

quality of life for the inhabitants of this section of Manor Road, which up to now is at least limited tothe weekends.