Whilst the details of the application and associated services need to be considered andworked through by planners I think this development should be supported because:A) gentle infil of new housing is one key method needing to be utilised to providing housing in thecity where we have a chronic shortage of housing. This is a good use of loft space instead of justincreasing the size of the existing property, the owner is bringing additionality to the housing stockin the city - this is much needed.B) Care costs for the elderly are forecasted to be an increasing (possibly unmanageable) burdenon the NHS. Any move to care for the elderly near family units, whilst maintaining as muchindependent living for the elderly as possible, should be encouraged.

If there are concerns this development is just for Airbnb, this could be mitigated in a covenant orlease.

The Panel objects to this application.

This is a poorly considered and ill conceived application proposal. It pays no regard to thearchitectural style and elements of the original building, the setting of the adjacent listed buildingsnor the intrinsic aesthetic appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. This applicationsubsumes the existing building and destroys any semblance of its value. The proposal does notmeet the requirements of policies BCS22 and DM31 to safeguard or enhance this part of theConservation Area nor does it meet the test of Para 202 of the NPPF. It is considered that theproposal creates substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets, which is notoutweighed by any discernible public benefits. Consequently, at this point in time this proposaldoes not accord with the requirements of relevant heritage policies nor the NPPF.

Dear Planner,I am the owner of 29 Granby Hill, which I bought in 1962. It is evident that the three adjacentproperties 27, 29 add 31 have had a common history. They have a complicated shared roofdrainage system which ultimately collected in a water store in the basement of number 27, fromwhere it could be hand pumped for domestic use.The ground floor room in number 29 adjacent to number 31 used to have a floor of cobbles and alintel, full ceiling height and spreading the width of the room. This indicates that number 31, withpart of number 29, was the stables block serving the main house.After some years, I was notified that number 29 was to be registered as a listed building. At thetime, I had assumed that all three properties, that is 27, 29 I am 31, would be listed togetherbecause of their obvious history. However, although it should have been, number 31 was notlisted.Later, number 31 changed hands and the new owner immediately starting to make some veryobvious alterations. Parapets were demolished, lead gutters removed, modern gutters added,modern windows replaced the original ones and concrete tiles replaced the original clay pantiles.As for the existing planning application! It is totally inappropriate for the site And should not beallowed. However, the issue could simply be resolved by giving the building a listed status. thiswould correct the previous bureaucratic error.

Kind regards,Peter Rouse.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Planner,

It is evident that the three adjacent

properties 27, 29 add 31 have had a common history. They have a complicated shared roof

drainage system which ultimately collected in a water store in the basement of number 27, from

where it could be hand pumped for domestic use.

The ground floor room in number 29 adjacent to number 31 used to have a floor of cobbles and a

lintel, full ceiling height and spreading the width of the room. This indicates that number 31, with

part of number 29, was the stables block serving the main house.

After some years, I was notified that number 29 was to be registered as a listed building. At the

time, I had assumed that all three properties, that is 27, 29 I am 31, would be listed together

because of their obvious history. However, although it should have been, number 31 was not

listed.

Later, number 31 changed hands and the new owner immediately starting to make some very

obvious alterations. Parapets were demolished, lead gutters removed, modern gutters added,

modern windows replaced the original ones and concrete tiles replaced the original clay pantiles.

As for the existing planning application! It is totally inappropriate for the site And should not be

allowed. However, the issue could simply be resolved by giving the building a listed status. this

would correct the previous bureaucratic error.

Kind regards,

I wish to object to the proposal plans No 23/00866/F

I am concerned about the plans to make 2 parking spaces on the small, steep, grassyverge at the top of

residents have cared for and maintained this area for many yearsFor the past 10 + years has provided a bench on this site

for communal use.

I am worried that this development will have a detrimental effect on the historic retainingboundary stone wall. The area would need to be levelled to provide suitable parkingspaces. Will this put the wall at risk of collapsing/subsidence?There are manhole covers for CATV and Bristol Water on the bank. What assurancewill residents have that their water supply and phone/internet lines won'tbe interrupted?

Victoria Terrace is a narrow road with street parking on the opposite side to theproposed car parking. This might make it quite tight to park a car on the east space. Thewest space would possibly . Would the parkingspaces be used only for the flat residents, or would residents of 31 Granby Hill also beusing the spaces? There is on street parking on local roads for residents.There would be reducing visibility for vehicles exiting This could be a

traffic hazard. Recycling and Refuse lorries need to access Alsoemergency vehicles and occasionally furniture removal lorries.

There could be a problem with rain water caused by paving over the grassy bank. Isthere provision for a soak away? As rainfall is expected to increase, any runoff could godown our drive and add to flooding that already occurs after heavy rain on the forecourt.Has this been taken into account?

The grassy bank with the healthy beautiful plum tree which has lovely blossom in springand produces plums in the autumn is a benefit to the area. This established tree helpswith air quality. The owner of 31 Granby Hill is planning to plant two trees west of theplum tree, where the bench is positioned at present. I am concern about this, as theywill be close to the wall and near the manhole covers. I feel as they grow their rootscould cause future problems. On plans new tree planting was mentioned east of theplum tree. Established trees help with air quality and rainfall. New trees take time beforethey help with climate change.

residents were only informed of this proposed development byneighbours from Victoria Terrace? Also the only public notice was put on a post amongbrushes and on a blind corner with no pavement. There is a lamp post on a pavementby grassy bank on the plans where locals could safely read the notice.

I object to this application.

The loss of green space and a mature tree would be a hugely detrimental change. There is verylittle green space in this area and no mitigation is possible in the neighbourhood. No evidence isprovided that the verge is actually owned by number 31. I find this hard to believe - what then wasthe point in building the northern boundary wall? In any event, the verge is effectively a publicamenity and home to some wildlife. Losing this for private parking is completely unacceptable andno doubt contrary to several planning guidelines. Car parking should be shared in the existingdriveway.

31 Granby Hill nestles unobtrusively in the cityscape. This attempt to shoehorn in moreaccommodation in an already dense area would change the character of the property such that itwould stick out like a sore thumb. The mixed bag of building styles and materials would be out ofkeeping with existing buildings in a conservation area.

Whilst there are many three storey properties in the area, the adjoining property (number 29) isonly two storeys high where it connects with number 31. The parapets step down northwardstowards number 31. Increasing its height by 1.5 metres would upset this aesthetic.

The planning notice was placed where it is partially obscured by foliage and not adjacent to anyfootpath, so that few people would notice it. One should have been placed near the seating wherethe parking is proposed.

There is no interconnecting door between the properties, yet it is claimed that is is for care of

family members. Without any internal connection, it would be necessary to walk up to the end ofthe driveway and then double back, which would not be very convenient. This looks like anopportunistic money-making development, and planning permission should be denied.

I object to this application.

The loss of green space and a mature tree would be a hugely detrimental change. There is verylittle green space in this area and no mitigation is possible in the neighbourhood. No evidence isprovided that the verge is actually owned by number 31. I find this hard to believe - what then wasthe point in building the northern boundary wall? In any event, the verge is effectively a publicamenity and home to some wildlife. Losing this for private parking is completely unacceptable andno doubt contrary to several planning guidelines. Car parking should be shared in the existingdriveway.

31 Granby Hill nestles unobtrusively in the cityscape. This attempt to shoehorn in moreaccommodation in an already dense area would change the character of the property such that itwould stick out like a sore thumb. The mixed bag of building styles and materials would be out ofkeeping with existing buildings in a conservation area.

Whilst there are many three storey properties in the area, the adjoining property (number 29) isonly two storeys high where it connects with number 31. The parapets step down northwardstowards number 31. Increasing its height by 1.5 metres would upset this aesthetic.

The planning notice was placed where it is partially obscured by foliage and not adjacent to anyfootpath, so that few people would notice it. One should have been placed near the seating wherethe parking is proposed.

There is no interconnecting door between the properties, yet it is claimed that is is for care of

family members. Without any internal connection, it would be necessary to walk up to the end ofthe driveway and then double back, which would not be very convenient. This looks like anopportunistic money-making development, and planning permission should be denied.

There is but one tree on this development site. It has been accepted by the TreeSurgeon reporting for the Applicant that this tree - a plum tree growing on the verge between theproperty garden wall and the highway - is doomed.

Bristol has a Core Planning Policy - BCS9 - which is routinely not applied."Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into newdevelopment. Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed for as part ofan adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to achieve the policy aimsof the Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets will berequired."Instead, the developers, and sadly, often as not the Planners as well, head straight for mitigationas the easiest option. The Developer has already planned for the loss of the tree with thesuggestion of felling the tree, planting two trees in mitigation on site (will there be room for thatnew planting?) and planting two trees on public land as off-site mitigation - that would cost theDeveloper £2082 approx.But there are no spaces on streets or in parks anywhere near the development site for two trees tobe planted - not even a space for one tree. So the money would sit in the Council's bank account,hardly benefitting the environment On this ground alone planning permission should be denied asit is not possible for the applicant/developer to mitigate for the environmental damage thedevelopment would cause.Were this development to go ahead two major environmental planning policies would not be met ina time of climate crisis. Firstly, a current green asset would be destroyed, contrary to core planningpolicies, and secondly it would not be possible to mitigate for that loss, contrary to adoptedplanning obligations.

It is apparent from reading the objections posted on the planning portal that the tree, contrary tothe Arboriculturist's opinion, is very significant in the local landscape, and that its loss will have amajor impact on the local character. These are added reasons to deny the application, the moreso as its loss cannot be compensated for.

I do not have an objection to the addition to this two storey building, in terms of thesingle storey apartment to be added. I do not consider this has implications for the heritage natureof the neighbourhood, and I am a supporter of incremental, non-damaging measures which chipaway at the housing crisis in Bristol.I do however object to the removal of the tree, and the conversion of the green space on VictoriaTerrace, beside the house, to parking. This seems unnecessary given the existing parking onneighbouring streets. We are committed, via the Citizens Assembly, to shifting the city away fromcar dependence and to reducing parking 2% per year across the city. We must also protect greenspaces, however small, in the city.I would ask for this proposal to be amended to exclude the parking and be re-submitted.

I am writing to object to an aspect of this planning application. I believe that the proposalto build an access point for two vehicles on the piece of grassland on the corner of Granby Hill andVictoria Terrace will have several deleterious impacts on safety and accessibility for Windsor Courtresidents.

I am concerned that building additional vehicular access to 31 Granby Hill on Victoria Terrace willcreate impediments to large vehicles, such as garbage and delivery vehicles, entering WindsorCourt. At present, Windsor Court residents cannot recycle cardboard because the relevantrecycling vehicle is unable to access the property. There is a meaningful risk that the proposeddevelopment could exacerbate this problem and prevent other collections and deliveries.

Second, the development has the potential for reducing safe pedestrian access to Windsor Court.The current residents of Windsor Court include older people and young families. Potentialrestrictions in sightlines coming from additional parked vehicles, in addition to the traffic created byvehicles entering and egressing from the property, will increase the risk to pedestrians.

I strongly object to this application to create what is in affect a new separate propertynot on Granby Hill but on Victoria Terrace.

It will detrimentally impact the local area in several ways;

The removal of the green land on Victoria Terrace which is currently partially covered with shrubsand grass will remove one of the only communal green spaces in the area - one with a long historyof communal use. ( as proved by the park bench situated on it ). The land has been a public spacesince at least the 1970s and it's development should not be premitted. The applicant does notmaintain it and it should be noted that the ownership of the land is in question.

Turning this land into hard surfaced parking will have a serious impact on the safety of Road Usersin particular those accessing Windsor Court. Parked vehicles on this land will block the view ofvehicles coming up Victoria Terrace from Granby Hill increasing the likely hood of accidents.Victoria Terrace is a popular cut through for cylists and scooters going up to Clifton and theirsafety would be at risk.

The plans involve the removal of a section of ancient stone wall and a mature tree - both of whichare assets to the local area.

The plans for the development substantially alter the period property of 31 Granby Hill which is, asit stands, a handsome and proportioned property. The development adversly affects theappearance of the area and is within the local conservation area so any permitted developmentshould not affect the characater of the area.

I wish to object to this planning application.

My reasons are that the felling of mature trees on this small patch of public garden iscontrary to environmental objectives.

In addition, the wild flowers and plants support numerous insects and birds, it'sdestruction would be a significant loss.

Whilst it is a small piece of land it's destruction simply for the financial gain of a privateproperty will not benefit the community. Nothin is being offered nor can it be that couldreplace or compensate for the loss and destruction of this small wild garden.

I sincerely hope this application is rejected.

Kind regards

I write to object to this Planning Application, as the proposed design encroaches on tothe grass bank, the thriving plum tree and bench seat in Victoria Terrace.

1. Removing the grass bank and turning it into a hard surface for two off-street parking spaces isnot appropriate. The area is very narrow and impractical for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out.There is plenty of street parking close by, and it is always possible to find a space.

2. With street parking opposite the grass bank, plus delivery vehicles, cars and pedestrians visitingWindsor Court, the junction will become very hazardous. Street safety will be an issue.

3. The grass bank, mature plum tree and bench are a place where people rest, wait and enjoy ona daily basis. The grass area has been cut and kept tidy by the residents of Windsor Court for agreat many years and is a valued asset. There are not many open spaces in the area like this thatthe community enjoy. Hence, it needs to remain.

4. The 'Maps' button on the Planning Application Tracking Form indicates the BCC PlanningDepartment's boundary plan, clearly showing the red site boundary lines of 31 Granby Hill. Theboundary of 31 Granby Hill does not extend to the road kerb of Victoria Terrace, or include thetrunk of the plum tree. This is at variance with the Application Site Plan. Can the Council confirmthat the red boundary line on their boundary map is correct?

5. Other neighbours 'Objections' have clearly highlighted the shortcomings of the building'ssubmitted design. All of which agree.

SummaryThe proposed suggestion of two off-street parking spaces; formed by the removal of the grassedarea, plum tree and timber bench will be a tragic loss of a well used amenity. Taking into accountthe difficult vehicle manoeuvring, together with pedestrians visiting Windsor Court, it will make theroad junction very dangerous. Safety must take priority.

Together with the site boundary line variance, this Application needs to be rejected.

Objections to Planning Application 23/00866/F

We are writing as residents of 3 Victoria Terrace as we look directly across the road and down onto No. 31 Granby Hill.

1. We are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed new storey, which, with its flat roof,is out of keeping with roofs in this Conservation Area.

2. We are further concerned about the detrimental effect of the proposed 2-car parking space andthe resulting loss of part of the grass bank, together with the plum-tree. This grass area has abench, which is frquently in use.

3. This off-street parking presents a potential hazard for traffic and pedestrians at the junction ofWindsor Court and Victoria Terrace.

4. There seems to be no provision for dustbins or recycling bins, and we are concerned about theunsightly effect of their presence on the hard surface.

Our overall misgivings concern the negative visual impact of the proposed development on thisConservation Area. Also that it removes some green space in an urban area, and creates morecar-parking space and hard surfaces: in our experience, there are enough parking spaces in thisarea (and, indeed, within the property of 31 Granby Hill).

I am concerned about to make 2 parking spaces on the small ,steep grassy verge at thetop of Windsor Court's driveway.

Windsor Court residents have cared for and maintained this area for many years. I have lived heresince 1978. For the past 10+ years we have provided a bench on this site for communal use.

I am worried that this development will have a detrimental effect on the historic retaining boundarystone wall. The area would need to be levelled to provide suitable parking spaces. Will this put thewall at risk of collapsing/subsidence.

There are manhole covers for CATV and Bristol Water on the bank. What assurance will WindsorCourt residents have that their water supply and phone/internet lines won't be interrupted? Ourwater meter and stopcock is at the top of our drive.

Victoria Terrace is a narrow road with on street parking on the opposite side to the proposed carparking. This might make it quite tight to park a car on the east space. The west space wouldpossibly need to use out drive to park a car .Would the parking spaces used only for the flatresidents, or residents of 31 Granby Hill be using the?

There would be reduced visibility for vehicles exiting Windsor Court. This could be a traffic hazard.Recycling and refuse lorries need to access our drive weekly. Also emergency vehicles andoccasionally furniture removal lorries.There could be problem with rain water caused by paving over the grassy bank. Is there a goingsoak away.

The grassy has a mature tree which

Continuation.

As rainfall is expected to increase any runoff could go down our steep drive and add to floodingthe already occurs after heavy rain forecourt. Has this been taken into account.

The grassy bank with the healthy beautiful plum is a benefit to the area. Lovely blossom in springand plums end of summer. The owner of 31 Granby Hill is planning to plant 2 tree west of the plumtree where the bench is positioned at present. I an concerned about this, as they will be close tothe wall and near the manhole covers. I feel as they grow their roots could cause future problemsto the wall and utilities. On the plans new trees were suggested east of the plum tree. Establishedtrees help with air quality and rainfall. New tress take time before they help with carbon emissions.

Windsor Court residents were only made aware of these plans by our neighbours in VictoriaTerrace. Also the only public notice when it was put up; was on a post among brushes and on ablind corner with no pavement, too high to read for short people. ( There was a suitable lamp poston a pavement by grassy bank where locals could safely read the notice.

PS The owner of 31 Granby Hill has only recently take an interest in the land. He has never litterpick it or paid for the cutting of the grass.

Reference: 23/00866/FAddress: 31 Granby Hill Bristol BS8 4LTProposal: The proposals are to provide a new self-contained single storey apartment over theexisting two storey host building.

I am writing concerning the above application. I am a resident of Windsor Court where theproposed development of 31 Granby Hill would take place at the top of the roadway out ofWindsor Court.

I have viewed the plans and supporting documents via the council's website and would like toregister my objection to the application.

Introduction

I am objecting to the proposed development ("the proposed development") as this will:1. Create an issue with highway safety2. Cause traffic and parking issues3. Result in the demolishing of a length of pre-existing early to mid 19th century wall and a pre-existing chimney4. Result in the removal of a healthy tree and green space in a conservation area5. Be a precedent6. Be of an inappropriate design

1. Highway safety

The proposed two parking spaces would mean any vehicles attempting to park would have tomanoeuvre on Victoria Terrace causing an obstruction while doing so.

The parking space directly outside the porch (see PL-A-07(A)) is likely to require the vehicles toblock the entrance to Windsor Court while parking.

2. Cause traffic and parking issues

The proposed second floor and roof plans PL-A-07(A) indicate that there will be a change in theline of the current curb to extend it towards Victoria Terrace.

I am concerned that the extension of the curb in such a way may cause an obstruction to theentrance to Windsor Court. This could mean that emergency vehicles and refuse lorries couldhave difficulty in accessing Windsor Court when required to do so.

This extension in the curb would also exacerbate the highway safety issue by reducing theavailable space for the vehicles to manoeuvre.

I am also concerned that the proposed parking spaces on PL-A-07(A) appear to be small (itappears to be less than 2.5 metres at its narrowest) and would be even smaller if the kerb wasretained in its original position. This might result in any vehicles parked in these spaces to extendbeyond the boundaries set out in the plans mentioned above which would make the issues in thetwo previous paragraphs worse.

3. Wall and chimney removal

The proposed development will require the removal of over 10m of the retaining wall between 31Granby Hill and Victoria Terrace in order to create two parking spaces and the separate entranceporch to the second floor of the proposed development.

This section of the wall appears on the 1844-1888 OS 25" 1st edition map as shown onmaps.bristol.gov.uk and looks like it is also on the 1828 Ashmead map (same source). Therefore,this wall has been in situ since the early to mid 19th century.

I am very concerned that the applicants are intending to remove a large section of such a historicwall.

31 Granby Hill also has a prominent chimney on the northeast corner of the property (see PL-A-01and Photo 1 of the applicant's tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment) which they areintending to remove. It is not shown in situ on the proposed site block plan (PL-A-06).

I am concerned that the applicants are intending to remove such a prominent feature of theirroofline.

The view from Victoria Terrace towards Dundry is mentioned as an important view in the Cliftonand Hotwells Character Appraisal & Management Proposals of June 2010 (reference P12). Figure6 of the applicant's Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement shows this viewcurrently. The increase in height of 31 Granby Hill and the removal of the chimney will impact onthis view as these changes are directly in line of sight between Victoria Terrace and Dundry.

4. Result in the removal of a healthy tree and green space in a conservation area

The proposed development will require the removal of a mature tree in a conservation area thathas over 10 years of life left (see the applicant's tree survey and arboricultural impactassessment). This is the only tree on Victoria Terrace and forms a focus on the street (see photo 1of the applicant's tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment).

I believe that its removal would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street, as a result. Also,new trees planted on such a sloping and well-draining site would take a considerable number ofyears to obtain the size of the current tree so, no matter if it were replaced, the detrimental effectwould extend over many years.

As already mentioned, the view from Victoria Terrace towards Dundry is mentioned as animportant view in the Clifton and Hotwells Character Appraisal & Management Proposals of June2010. The removal of the tree would significantly impact on this view as it is directly in line of sightbetween Victoria Terrace and Dundry.

Almost the entire green space shown to the right of the concrete bollard in Photo 1 of theapplicant's tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment would be removed to create theparking spaces and porch of the proposed development. I feel this would be detrimental to thelocal area as it removes one of only three green spaces visible from the road in the local area. Theonly other such local, green spaces are a space on the corner of Granby Hill and CumberlandPlace and another one in Hope Square (which is not generally visible unless you are in HopeSquare itself as it is a dead end).

Looking again at photo 1 mentioned above: the green space and tree would be replaced by a viewof two parked cars/parking spaces.

The use of hardstanding for the cars would also increase run off into the storm drain at the bottomof Victoria Terrace.

5. Setting a precedent

I am concerned that this application will set a precedent for adding additional floors to otherproperties in the area. I am not aware of any other property on Granby Hill, Victoria Terrance,Windsor Terrace, Hope Chapel Hill, Freeland Place, Albermarle Row or Cumberland Place thathave had an additional floor added. This proposed development would, therefore, set a precedent.

Many of these other buildings do have dormer windows so, a roof conversion could be analternative for the applicants instead of adding another floor to the property.

6. Inappropriate design

The roof line of the current building of 31 Granby Hill is at a similar height to that of the part of thelisted building which is directly next door (29 Granby Hill). The roof line of 29 Granby Hill stepsdown towards 31 Granby Hill. The proposed development would change the roof line as viewedfrom Granby Hill to step up from 29 Granby Hill thereby being inconsistent with the roofline of 29Granby Hill.

Other points

I am concerned that the entrance porch appears to have steps up to the front door when they havenoted it is of use for elderly relatives. I would expect a flat or sloped entrance to provide ease ofaccess.

I also do not understand why two parking spaces would be needed for a two-bedroom flat whenother such flats in the local area have no parking or one off-street parking space.

Conclusion

The construction of a new floor on top of 31 Granby Hill:

- Creates an issue with highway safety;

- Creates a potential issue with access to Windsor Court for emergency vehicles and refuse lorries

- Will remove a long section of an early to mid 19th century wall and a prominent chimney

- Will remove a healthy tree and green space in a conservation area

- Is a precedent

- Is out of scale with the directly adjoining property

For those reasons, I believe that planning permission should be rejected.

Chopping down a tree and swapping grass for parking spaces...is this really how innercity Bristol should be developing in 2023 (to further degrade the quality of our air and warm thecity)?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Objections to Planning Application 23/00866/F

We are writing as residents of as we look directly across the road and down on

to No. 31 Granby Hill.

1. We are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed new storey, which, with its flat roof,

is out of keeping with roofs in this Conservation Area.

2. We are further concerned about the detrimental effect of the proposed 2-car parking space and

the resulting loss of part of the grass bank, together with the plum-tree. This grass area has a

bench, which is frquently in use.

3. This off-street parking presents a potential hazard for traffic and pedestrians at the junction of

Windsor Court and Victoria Terrace.

4. There seems to be no provision for dustbins or recycling bins, and we are concerned about the

unsightly effect of their presence on the hard surface.

Our overall misgivings concern the negative visual impact of the proposed development on this

Conservation Area. Also that it removes some green space in an urban area, and creates more

car-parking space and hard surfaces: in our experience, there are enough parking spaces in this

area (and, indeed, within the property of 31 Granby Hill).

We strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

1. Road Safety: There are 3 road junctions at Victoria Terrace - one with Granby Hill, one withWindsor Court and another with Windsor Place. Victoria Terrace is a narrow road with only onelane of traffic possible at a time and with very limited traffic visibility, especially at the GranbyHill/Victoria Terrace junction. The proposed plans represent a road safety hazard in that trafficvisibility will be further compromised. This is of significant concern due to the number of childrenthat live in the area. It is also of concern given current plans to re route traffic away from HopeChapel Hill and the potential for this traffic to redirect around the loop of Victoria Terrace/WindsorPlace - we already see this when traffic races around this loop to escape poor flow of traffic onGranby Hill due to congestion.

2. Road safety: There is already limited space making access for larger vehicles such as dustbinlorries and emergency vehicles to Victoria Terrace, Windsor Court and Windsor Terrace - in factwhen there was an arson attack on several cars outside Windsor Terrace a few years ago the fireengines were only able to access the fire via Victoria Terrace. The proposed plans would causefurther narrowing of this road and so further compromise access.

3. Removal of the plum tree and grassy bank/green space: The proposed removal of the plum tree(with its nesting birds) and the green space (with the communal bench) is a travesty. This areaprovides a meeting point for the local residents and is also utilised by visitors to the area thatpause to enjoy the view or rest during the steep incline of Victoria Terrace and Granby Hill.

4. Removal of the plum tree: We strongly challenge the validity and objectiveness of the tree

report stating that the tree only has 20 years of life left and the only option is to remove it. At a timeof ever increasing awareness of the positive impact of trees to offset carbon emissions it seems abackward step to cut down the tree. Whilst the stated intention of planting 2 new trees and thedonation of £1530 to Bristol City Council to allow further trees to be planted at other sites of theirchoosing in Bristol is positive (we note the donation is apparently due to the acknowledged lack ofavailable space at the proposed accommodation site to plant more trees here), this would notbring any actual benefit to the environment for many years to come.

5. Clifton is a Conservation area: The aesthetic of the proposed accommodation's roof is not inkeeping with the surrounding properties. The beautiful visual aspect that we are fortunate tocurrently enjoy will be lost - a flat roof, car parking and bins would replace the plum tree and greenspace. It is worth noting that keeping the Plum tree would bring some privacy to and from anyproposed new accommodation - the position of the 2 proposed replacement trees will not help withthis. Cars parking in the proposed accommodation spaces would bring significant light pollutioninto our property on Victoria Terrace as they will be directly across from the front of our house.Both the main bedroom and the lounge of our property would be directly overlooked by theproposed development

6. Car parking: We are at a complete loss to understand why accommodation that is proposed forelderly relatives requiring assistance in care should require 2 parking spaces, which is in additionto the 2 off road car parking spaces that are available at 31 Granby Hill already. There is (usually)ample residents parking spaces around Victoria Terrace and Windsor Place and there is alsocurrently a disabled car parking space in Victoria Terrace which is directly opposite the plum treethat could be utilised if parking was required by an elderly relative with care needs.

7. Car parking: We are also concerned that some resident parking spaces would actually have tobe removed from Victoria Terrace to accommodate the space that would be required for theproposed accommodation's parking spaces in order to allow for an adequate turning space orentry/exit into the parking space.

8. Question of land ownership: For the 8 years that we have been residents of Victoria Terrace ithas been the residents of Windsor Court that have tended and maintained the grassy bank areaso we were very surprised to learn that it is in fact the property of 31 Granby Hill.

In Summary:The creation of the proposed property appears to be for an entirely separate dwelling with its own2 designated parking spaces, rather than for elderly relatives with care needs. It is neitherenvironmentally nor aesthetically sensitive to the neighbouring area and we believe has thepotential to worsen road safety. For this reason we strongly object to the proposed development.

Dear Sirs

This planning application needs to be declined on several strong grounds.

1. My first objection is linked to the proposed loss of the mature plum tree as well as loss of muchof the grass verge.

As you will know, there are very few green spaces in BS8 so this proposal would result in aconsiderable loss to the local community. I am a weekly visitor of friends in the neighborhood andhave enjoyed the green space that the grass verge and plum tree allow. The horticulturalist reportis clearly biased since the applicant will have paid the horticulturalist a fee to find a solution to theremoval of the mature tree. The tree is described in the report as in fair condition with an expectedlife span of 10+ years. Clearly with at least another 10 years of life expectancy, this tree isimportant and should be viewed as more important than the development of parking spaces.

Linked to this objection is the proposed loss of the grass verge. This verge has been keep nicelycut by the local community (Windsor Court) for many decades and is extremely important to them.The tidy (low cut grass) verge allows for safe sight lines to observe the hourly traffic that swervesin and out over the steep hill that goes down to Windsor Court. If the grass were lost and replacedby parked cars on the verge, it would make both pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle access dangerousto Windsor Court. Please be aware that there are many elderly residents in Windsor Court andtheir safety should be paramount.

2. My second objection is linked to the selfish proposed need for two parking spaces. If the

proposed development is single storey for an elderly 'couple', why do they need to have landcleared to park two cars? Surely they would only have one car? And why can they not use the on-street parking like everyone else in the neighborhood. In all my time of visiting the GranbyHill/Windsor Court area of Bristol in the past two years, I have always found a parking space reallyeasily and never had to park further than 25m from my friend's front door. I would propose that ifresources were made available, that an independent survey be undertaken to monitor localparking availability to prove my point.

I note in the application that the existing garden will be shared between the existing 2 storeyproperty at 31 Granby Hill, as well as the proposed single storey extension. Surely the commonsense approach to the parking issue would be to allow the elderly parents to park in the new'shared' garden. If the applicant were to object to this suggestion possibly saying it wouldn't bereasonable (or it would be too difficult) for their elderly relatives to walk from the garden, round thecorner and up the steep hill to the extension; then the elderly relatives shouldn't be moving to theBS8 area anyway. They will be become permanently confined to their property because of thegeneral steep hilly nature of all the surrounding neighborhood.

3. Finally, given the fact that the development has been designed to be completely independent tothe existing 2 storey property , e.g. no shared access, doors, etc, it raises the question as towhether it is really being done for elderly relatives, or instead, with more to an eye for letting it outas Airbnb or similar or a second home, rather than providing accommodation to assist with thehousing shortage that we know exists in the UK.

I wish to OBJECT to the proposed Planning Application on the following grounds:

1. The removal of a Plum tree within a Conservation Area was not mentioned on the publicPlanning Notice. In addition, the only Public Notice displayed has been located within bushes andcould not be read without standing on large irregular stones within the bushes, at a location wherethere is no public pavement. I object to this sole location where the public do not pass by. NoPublic Notices have been located at the proposed second storey street entrance or the thrivingplum tree, both at the Windsor Court entrance.

2. The residents of Victoria Terrace have enjoyed looking out upon a grass bank with a plum tree(within a Conservation Area) and the timber bench for many decades. The area provides a facilityof natural charm enjoyed and used by many in the local community. I object to the proposedremoval of the Plum tree and natural grassed bank.

3. The plum tree also has the ability to soften the view of the properties behind it, looking fromVictoria Terrace. Turning the area into hard landscape area will not improve the outlook. Theproposal to provide two new trees toward the Granby Hill junction is no compensation for the lossof the thriving plum tree or softening the impact of the buildings behind.

4. The narrow portion of land from Windsor Court entrance to Granby Hill has never been regularlymaintained by the applicant. However, the grassed area and plum tree has been maintained bythe residents of Windsor Court for decades.

5. The map dated 1844 - !888 (indicated in Fig 7 of the Heritage Statement) clearly shows that the

original Windsor Terrace development included the Windsor Court site, which housed the coachhouse and stables. Victoria Terrace was a community garden, also belonging to Windsor Terrace.At the bottom of Victoria Terrace were gates fronting Granby Hill, with a gatehouse positioned onthe site of 6 Victoria Terrace. The low stone wall opposite, being the original site boundary. With31 Granby Hill now claiming ownership beyond the wall, is a boundary line that needs to be doublechecked.

6. The two new car parking spaces are not required as there is already adequate street parkingwithin Victoria Terrace and Windsor Place.

7. The proposed parking bays are very close to the highway kerb and manoeuvring in and out ofthe parking spaces will become extremely dangerous, especially at the access point for vehiclesand pedestrians destined for Windsor Court.

8. The second floor flat has no facility for occupants to enjoy a garden or balcony. This is a veryserious shortcoming.

9. The present footprint of the dwelling has been increased, resulting in the north wall of thedesign being moved toward the low stone boundary wall facing Victoria Terrace. The new wall willhave a significant impact on the Victoria Terrace view, with the proposed 'match existing' bluepainted render and weatherboarding that are both foreign to the street. Natural urban finishedmaterials should be maintained throughout the street scene, in keeping with all existing buildings.

10. The additional floor is stated 'As needed to care for elderly relatives'. As there is no proposedinternal staircase linking the two properties. The application clearly indicates a self containedapartment.

ConclusionThe proposed design does not add to the charm of this natural soft landscaped social area, whichhas been enjoyed by the Victoria Terrace residents and the community at large for many years.The grass bank, plum tree and timber bench are a significant feature of the street scene that isregularly used and a very valued local amenity. If removed, it will be a tragic loss to thecommunity.

The creation of two off-street parking spaces in a very cramped and inappropriate position willcause dangerous vehicle manoeuvring.

There are few grassed community areas in BS8 providing a social space. This planningapplication needs to be rejected as proposed.

I would like to object to the proposal 23/00866/F.

1) There is no need for additional parking in this area. Windsor Terrace has its own private road topark on, and it is very rare that you need to look for parking beyond Windsor Place or VictoriaTerrace (I think only once in over 10 years of living here have I needed to park on Granby Hill).

2) If the parking spaces were to go ahead, they create obvious road safety concerns. There aremany school children living on Windsor Terrace and Windsor Court who walk to school and acrossthis junction every day, twice a day. It is already fraught due to lack of visibility of cars coming fromWindsor Court, from Granby Hill, and from around the sharp bend of Windsor Place. I havewitnessed cars hitting each other due to said lack of visibility at the Granby Hill/Victoria Terracejunction.

There are already plans underway to route more traffic past this junction (i.e. down Granby Hill)instead of it going down Hope Chapel Hill, due to the local school. This is to make it safer forchildren walking to school. Cars already use the loop of Windsor Place round onto Victoria Terraceas a way of avoiding the stand-offs on Granby Hill when two cars cannot pass each other. Theincreased traffic on Granby Hill, which will make the Hope Chapel area safer, may well create anincrease in cars using this loop, which passes straight past this suggested new parking area.

Please don't add in *more* road safety issues when we are already at the point where the councilhas recognised the need to act to reduce them.

3) Children use this space as a place to stop on their way home from school. Visitors on walking

tours use it as a place to rest when coming to admire the views and learn about the local history ofthe area.

4) We should protect our green spaces, no matter how small, as they add beauty and characterand wildlife. I very much object to the plum tree being cut down as the suggested replacementswill be inadequate comparisons for a good decade at least.

1. Wildlife - The suggested plan to have a paved driveway for two cars, will destroy anarea of wildlife on Granby Hill. It is mainly our gardens, in this area which provide a habitat forwildlife, and wildlife corridors to further gardens/areas. The removal of an established tree, agrassy area and potentially the established shrubs, and shrubby cover, near the gate of number31, will mean there will be yet fewer birds and mammals able to live in our area.

A flock of Goldfinches and many Blue Tits have been seen using the tree, to name a few of thebirds to enjoy the tree, this Spring. Planting two new trees, as proposed, will take many years togrow in order to provide the level of cover of the existing tree.

Keeping a green space, soft landscaping, helps to reduce the urban heat island which is felt onour south facing slope, especially in the summer. Yet more hard landscaping will only exacerbatethis.

2.Conservation - The proposed parking bays will not preserve the historic look of the road, makinga pleasant area look less attractive.The appearance of the street boundaries will also be changed if the line of the old rubble wall ischanged by adding a porch and lowering the bank.This area is also enjoyed by lots of visitors on their way up to the suspension bridge. Visitors oftenremark how beautiful the area/road is and stop to rest on the bench by the tree. The amenity of thearea could be significantly reduced, by such a bold planning scheme.

3. Highway Safety - The position of the parking bays is concerning, being possibly too close to, thecorner of Winsor Court driveway? Windsor Court has a busy entrance, used frequently by it's

residents and delivery vehicles alike. With possible poor sight lines, this may be very dangerous tocars, cyclists and pedestrians.

3. Design - The extension to number 31 Granby Hill does not have a clear narrative, it is a hotch-potch of ideas. The new roof borrows from the unattractive roof design of Hope House and thenuses a more modern aesthetic for the timber porch.The reason for choosing the 'Vertical Timber Weatherboard' material is, it is a 'Natural Materialand will soften the entrance Porch'. By making the porch wooden, it will only make it stand outmore, as there are no other wooden porches on this street.

4.Construction - During construction, would it be possible to have some reassurance about thedisturbance to the area, a planning condition? There should be no long term road closes to thelower part of Victoria Terrace, limiting access, especially emergency vehicles. This ambitiousextension could turn this part of the road into a building site for many months, or even longer. Itmay be hard to schedule the build, if the retaining wall needs to be strengthened as experiencedon Windsor Place, when the road was shut for over a year.

Object to plan to put 2 parking spaces in place of existing grass bank and plum tree.This will cause a safety hazard to traffic entering and exiting the driveway of Windsor Court flats,particularly for large service and emergency vehicles. Secondly the replacement of a turf bank witha hard paving will increase run off and therefore flooding danger which is already a hazard and willonly increase as climate change increases.This is also an RPZ area with plentiful current parking bays already. There is no need to destroygreen areas to produce more off road parking.

CHIS objects to the granting of this application for the following reasons:

a. This is a cottage or mews type building with an attractive historic style which blends with thesurrounding varied architecture.

b. The proposed finished house would be an unfortunate blend of many architectural styles, mainlymodern, and as such would not enhance the conservation area but detract from the listedbuildings in whose setting it stands.

c. The loss of a mature fruit tree would be a regrettable loss to both people and birds.

d. The loss of green space would also be regrettable.

e. The parking spaces are badly situated giving rise to road safety issues.

f. Neighbours fear that the true intention is not to use this dwelling to house elderly parents but tolet it for other uses e.g. as an air&b which would be unacceptable.

g. Upvc is always unacceptable in the conservation area and should on no account be allowed.

I object on the grounds that this is overdevelopment for the size of the site/plot. Therewill be loss of existing green space and an increase in traffic onto Granby Hill, which is alreadyvery restricted. The panels proposed to the roof and other building materials are not in-keepingwith an area of conservation. The roof development will be seen from existing buildings in thesurrounding area.

In an area that is already very urban and has lots of problems with traffic I would objectto the removal of an area of mature green space, however small, to make way for yet more cars.This seems bad for the environment in terms of CO2 and air quality and to go against the directionthe council wants to in with regards cars in the city centre. The property would end up with 4 offroad parking spaces according to the plans which seems alot. Also this junction is already difficultfor cars and pedestrians to navigate safely and it's hard to see how this wouldn't make it evenworse from a traffic safety point of view.With regards the roof extension it would be better if the roof and style was in keeping with othersurrounding buildings. It also seems odd for an extension for family for it not be linked to the mainhouse. I worry that in time it will be used as a source of income and there already alot of rentalproperties on Granby Hill.

As a new resident and neighbour of Granby Hill, I strongly object to this proposalbecause there is a lack reasoning and explanation of how the impacts will be managed.Specifically, I am concerned about how the building procedure will be carried out withoutdisrupting my own dwellings in the top floor flat of 29 Granby Hill. The building process wouldencroach onto the roof of 29 Granby Hill, causing disruption and irritation in my own flat. This I amsure would also affect the other residences of 29 Granby Hill, as well as 27 Granby Hill. There isno time frame for the proposed build either. Please do not do this.

Furthermore, I feel it is unlikely the construction would not encroach onto the nearby roads, takingup limited parking spaces where myself and other neighbours park our cars. Realistically howwould this be avoided?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:As a new resident and neighbour of Granby Hill, I strongly object to this proposal

because there is a lack reasoning and explanation of how the impacts will be managed.

Specifically, I am concerned about how the building procedure will be carried out without

disrupting my own dwellings in the . The building process would

encroach onto the roof of causing disruption and irritation in my own flat. This I am

sure would also affect the other residences of as well as . There is

no time frame for the proposed build either. Please do not do this.

Furthermore, I feel it is unlikely the construction would not encroach onto the nearby roads, taking

up limited parking spaces where myself and other neighbours park our cars. Realistically how

would this be avoided?

There is a stone boundary wall to this property. Do the applicants own the land wherethey plan to create parking spaces? It's difficult to imagine two cars being parked there withoutmaking the turning onto and from Granby Hill more difficult. Also it would affect access to WindsorCourt.

the application is " to provide a new self-contained single storey apartment over theexisting two storey host building in order to provideassisted care for elderly relatives" but there is no shared access from the main house and if this isthe case then why is separate parking needed. This looks and feels like a Air b&b or buy-to-let.

This is a busy and dangerous corner and with residents and school drop offs the position of thenew drive is an accident waiting to happen .

we have a new LEZ to reduce emissions so the last thing we need is the loss of this mature CO2capture tree. There are new trees on the plan but these are insufficient and will take up to 10 yearsbefore they offer any carbon capture.

Deliveries and drop offs at the access position of the proposed residence will cause vehicle's to beparked in a very dangerous position leading to danger on both Victoria terrace and granby Hill

The plan is to make 2 parking spaces, this is a highway safety issue. Visibility foroncoming traffic, cyclists and pedestrians will be severely limited if 2 cars are parked in thisrestricted space.Victoria Terrace is a very narrow road, access for refuse and emergency vehicles will be evenmore problematic then it currently. This a a conservation area, 31 Granby Hill is an historicbuilding though having gone through alterations it still adds charm to the overall area. The designand general appearance is not conducive to this area.

As a frequent travellor to and from Windsor Terrace/Victoria Terrace, the vehicularparking access to the conversion from Victoria Terrace is a strange addition. With the provision ofparking already at the front of the property, common sense would be to use this, rather thanmaking two new extremely small spaces that would be extremely difficult to navigate into, or outof.

I am concerned at this proposed development. I visit my family and look after mygrandchilden children who live opposite. We enjoy the lovely view from the property. With thegreen grass area and the beautiful plum tree. This makes the area feel less urban and helps theroad feel safer for the children. It will be upsetting to see this area converted to a parking area andentrance to the property. I also worry about car safety with a change in the configuration of thejunction.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I write from the standpoint of being resident From our houses on

Victoria Terrace we look directly across the road to, and from above down onto, the roof of 31

Granby Hill, the site of the application. Our view of 31 Granby Hill is currently camouflaged by an

established and verdant plum tree growing in a grassy bank bordered by a rubble stone wall. How

31 Granby Hill is extended couldn't be more important to us as it would directly affect our sunny

outlook, and the character of our street. With this in mind and having studied the application

documents I object to the proposals shown on the application, and wish to make the following

comments giving the grounds for my objection:

1. The application states that it is to provide for accommodation for the '...assisted care for elderly

relatives.' However the new flat proposed in the application is self contained without any

interconnection with the existing house and no special arrangements for elderly care. It seems

from examination of the drawings to be a proposal, not as an extension of a family house, but

intended only for expansion of the premises and ultimately for purely commercial gain.

2. I note from the Application Form that no pre-application process has been undertaken so there

has possibly been no consultation with or professional advice taken from a planning officer.

3. The Design and Access Statement includes a number of contradictions. E.g. is 31 Granby Hill a

20th Century house (p.4 para 3) or is it a historic 18th Century house (p.6 para 2), so what is the

status of the house from a conservation perspective?

4. The additional height of the proposal would not directly compromise our distant views across

the Avon valley as it would be contained within the profiles of the higher houses numbers 27 and

29 Granby Hill behind. However, the objection to in the proposed building form is that we would be

looking down on a dark grey pvc flat roof bordered by a small perimeter tiled mansard, as shown

on the drawings. It would be more acceptable if the application showed a tiled/slated double-

pitched mansard roof, as is the norm locally in this Conservation Area: like our roofs in Victoria

Terrace, in 46-58 Granby Hill, on Granby House opposite, on Freeland Place , or Cornwallis

Crescent etc. etc.

The pv panels shown on the drawings are unlikely to be worthwhile where they are shown on the

flat roof which will be shaded by the adjacent houses, 27 and 29 Granby Hill.

5. I greatly object to the proposal in the application to replace a grassy bank with established tree

planting, with a flattened out area of two off-street car parking spaces. The proposal to replant new

trees on the small remaining segments of available land will not compensate for the loss of this

valued local amenity.

In detail, the reasons for my objection are:

(A) Foremost of my objections to this application would be the loss of visual amenity if the

proposal were to go ahead. We, and most passers by, greatly enjoy the outlook from Victoria

Terrace. The thriving existing plum tree on the site provides a foil concealing the current roof, and

the side elevation of any extension to the house at 31 Granby Hill, and we are very much against

losing it. The grassy bank, and the (Windsor Court) bench located there often seems to be used

by pedestrians climbing up towards Clifton from Hope Chapel Hill/Granby Hill as a place to pause

and take in the view.

(B) The off-street parking proposed would be potentially hazardous. I believe it would be

dangerous at the junction with Victoria Terrace road/Windsor Court ramp, at the apex of the steep,

narrow ramp down to Windsor Court, to require cars to back into/out of the off-street parking

spaces proposed into the road at this point. Already all the cars, delivery vans, refuse trucks and

pedestrians (frail elderly people and schoolchildren) coming up from or descending to Windsor

Court have a constrained junction to negotiate, without the benefit of a separating pavement. Off-

street parking places here, as shown on the application proposal, would present yet further

hazards.

(C) Further off-street parking is unnecessary. 31 Granby Hill already has two off-street parking

spaces, which the application confirms are intended to be maintained, at Granby Hill entrance

level. It would be straightforward to connect this lower parking area to the new flat proposed with a

staircase within the existing walls of 31 Granby Hill without encroaching on the grassy bank.

In our experience we have ample residents' street parking already in Victoria Terrace and Windsor

Place. Parking spaces for residents are, apart from on very exceptional occasions, always

available in these short streets. I hope that Bristol City Council would discourage ever increasing

car use by not permitting valued green space to be sacrificed for yet more parking.

(D) The off-street parking proposed is impractical. It appears that there is insufficient space to

provide adequate off-street car parking for two cars. The planted bank is only between 1.5m to 4m

wide at its maximum, and it varies in level considerably. Levelled paved areas for car parking

spaces, as proposed, would be complex to construct, requiring excavation and retaining walls,

would increase surface water run-off and furthermore would be tricky to negotiate in use.

(E) The application plans do not show any believable provision for containing recycling bins; there

are a couple of unlabelled squares, which might indicate bin locations, indicated on drawing PL-A-

07(A) located on the sloping ramp leading into and restricting the porch width. As the proposed flat

has no dedicated external space (balcony or garden) I assume that recycling bins would in reality

be permanently located on the otherwise unencumbered and tidy Victoria Terrace street. I object

to the plans submitted on this point.

6. In summary: we value the character and appearance of the Clifton and Hotwells Conservation

Area and I object to this application as the proposal shown would damage the quality of our

neighbourhood.