Chandos Neighbourhood Association objects to this proposal. This is squeezing anothersmall 2-bed dwelling into the back garden of a large HMO. It will thus reduce the gardenconsiderably, taking away green space in a crowded part of the city. It will dominate neighbouringgardens. If approved this could set a precedent for othere back-garden developments,inappropriate in the conservation area.

This proposed development would set a dangerous precedent for the residents ofRedland Rd and Fernbank Rd. The proposed building will completely over shadow the garden of102 and the gardens backing on to it in Fernbank Rd. Are we to have every available gardendeveloped in this way? The peace and tranquility of our area will be lost. 104 is at present 8 flatswhich must also have an impact on parking in Redland Rd. I cannot believe that planning is evenbeing considered.

I wish to object on the following grounds:It will seriously detract from the amenity and enjoyment of neighbouring historic buildings.It will cause loss of light and overshadow immediate neighbours' houses and gardens.It will take away much needed green space. Private gardens make a big contribution to nature andwildlife and to the urban environment and they also have a cooling effect in hot weather.It will contribute to the overdevelopment of the area.It is especially inappropriate in a conservation area.It will set a dangerous precedent.

This proposal does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of theconservation area, but actually harms it, and as such is contrary to local and national planningpolicy.

Also, the ecological importance of gardens to insects and other wildlife is a priority as climatechange takes an increasing hold.

Details of this proposal have been sent to me by the immediate neighbour of theproposed development. As a fellow resident in the area I am shocked that the proposal to build atwo storied property in such a position is even considered. The proposal is completely out ofkeeping with the local environment and has a grossly unfair and detrimental effect on theproperties of the neighbours. If such a development were permitted there would be no protectionfrom development for all the rear gardens in the area.Please reject this proposal out of hand.

I live in an adjoining property on Fernbank Road which backs on to the application site.

For me the proposals are ill considered and will have a negative impact on all surroundingproperties - in particular those immediately adjacent. I am objecting to them for the followingreasons:

1. This would set an unfortunate new precedent for residential development in back gardens in thisarea. This type of rear infilling will proliferate if permitted.

2. The property at 104 Redland Road is already densely occupied with 8 existing dwellings. I amconcerned at the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the existing building both for spreadof fire considerations and amenity use of the rear garden. The resulting back garden area will bevery tight and will interfere with the existing ground floor flat.

3. The proposed height of the new dwelling is out of keeping for the area. It will dominate viewsfrom all neighbouring properties and will block daylight/sunlight from those immediately adjacentand those further afield. The impact that it will have on the garden flat at 102 Redland Road to meseems unacceptable.

4. The proposed upper floor window will look out over the gardens to the south and east, meaningreduced privacy for those neighbours.

5. Given the track record on the two previous applications for this property, where, onimplementation the buildings have been constructed larger than was approved, I am concerned

that similar creep will occur in this instance - to the further detriment of all neighbours.

6. I am concerned about possible noise disturbance of neighbours from the proposed air sourceheat pump.

7. I am concerned about the added pressure it will place on existing parking in the area.

The height and scale of the proposed building not only deprives neighbouring propertiesof light, but in the case of immediately adjacent properties, obliterates their outlook. The out-of-scale proposal sets a precedent for two-storey development of single garages in the area. Couldconsideration also be given to check previous consents against the existing building.

An extension of this size will have a significant effect on the views of neighbours, and onthe light of some.In addition, this sets a dangerous precedent. The gardens in this area are not substantial and thiswould set a dangerous precedent allowing someone to develop a building of this size. It couldmean the loss a lot of green space in this area

Dear BCC,

I'm writing to object to the above planning application made for 102 on the following grounds:

1. The size and style of the proposed changes is out of proportion to the rest of any similarbuilding in the area. A two story building would set an imposing view for neighbours to the sideand back of the property. Making it hard for neighbours to enjoy their property.2. It sets a precedence for others to convert green spaces not designed for holding dwellings inthe area. Further damaging availability of gardens and green spaces if landlord owners now havethe ability to dig up gardens in favour of small dwellings that will be rented out at profit. This willdamage the area significantly and reduce already under stress ecosystems for endangered birdsand insects.3. Further stress on services and utilities on the road. Redland Road is already heavily congesteddue to the conversion of many of the properties into flats. This has stressed the availability ofparking spaces on the street. We have also had issues with water and waste on the road withblockages and burst pipes. Increasing stress on these by allowing development of these type ofdwellings will affect these services further.

In my frank opinion, this application is completely out of scale to what anyone in the road wouldexpect or consider reasonable.

Kind regards

Christopher Willis

As we live in a conservation area, it would not be in keeping to build an additional levelof housing, in what are relatively small residential gardens. It would be out of keeping. There isalready a substantial garden level building in place. Any higher and it would appear out ofproportion and overbearing.

I remember when the same owners were building the extension back when we movedinto our house. It was all to regulation size and height and suddenly at the last minute it grew ahuge amount that was not in their planning permissions. They simply snuck it in last minutebecause the owners were rich enough to trample over the local laws. You, the council, came toinspect it and concluded they had broken planning permission also. I say this to give context tothis whole situation. The owner planning to do this giant construction in the middle of everyonesgarden space has form in ignoring and disregarding laws simply because he's so rich he canafford it. This planned 2 story house would tower over everyones garden in the area as a massiveeye sore and damaging the environment and mental health of everyone using their gardens toenjoy an outdoor space. It would have a hugely negative impact on houses around it, and wouldtower above the already planning permission breaking extension they built. For the sake of therule of law, fairness, and justice in this case I strongly feel they should not be able to build a gianthouse in essentially everyone else's eye line and garden space. If it goes ahead it would set ahorrible precedent for other wealthy and selfish property owners to ruin this historic part of Bristolcreating concrete jungles of people living on top of each other, just so he can heat anotherswimming pool. I would encourage the planning permission to do the right thing and stop thisterrible decision from going ahead.Kind regardsSy E

A two-storey house in the garden which borders five other gardens would have a severedetrimental effect on the surrounding neighbours. It would overlook people's private spaces, blocklight and crowd the neighbouring gardens.Second, it may well have an effect on nearby houses' value if their gardens are directly overlookedby a house built right against their garden walls.Already no. 104 has built an extension to their ground floor - the "garden room" (additional groundfloor flat) was built outside planning permission and stands more than a metre above the gardenwall. The enormous, out-of-character garage followed. An enlargement to buildings in thissignificantly depleted garden space is unnecessary and would go against this neighbourhood'sconsiderable efforts at conservation.

Yet more additional residents would have an impact on the area, and the use of private gardensas a building space could set a new precedent which negatively affects the area's green oasis.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear BCC,

I'm writing to object to the above planning application made for 102 on the following grounds:

1. The size and style of the proposed changes is out of proportion to the rest of any similar

building in the area. A two story building would set an imposing view for neighbours to the side

and back of the property. Making it hard for neighbours to enjoy their property.

2. It sets a precedence for others to convert green spaces not designed for holding dwellings in

the area. Further damaging availability of gardens and green spaces if landlord owners now have

the ability to dig up gardens in favour of small dwellings that will be rented out at profit. This will

damage the area significantly and reduce already under stress ecosystems for endangered birds

and insects.

3. Further stress on services and utilities on the road. Redland Road is already heavily congested

due to the conversion of many of the properties into flats. This has stressed the availability of

parking spaces on the street. We have also had issues with water and waste on the road with

blockages and burst pipes. Increasing stress on these by allowing development of these type of

dwellings will affect these services further.

In my frank opinion, this application is completely out of scale to what anyone in the road would

expect or consider reasonable.

Kind regards

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I remember when the same owners were building the extension back when we moved

into our house. It was all to regulation size and height and suddenly at the last minute it grew a

huge amount that was not in their planning permissions. They simply snuck it in last minute

because the owners were rich enough to trample over the local laws. You, the council, came to

inspect it and concluded they had broken planning permission also. I say this to give context to

this whole situation. The owner planning to do this giant construction in the middle of everyones

garden space has form in ignoring and disregarding laws simply because he's so rich he can

afford it. This planned 2 story house would tower over everyones garden in the area as a massive

eye sore and damaging the environment and mental health of everyone using their gardens to

enjoy an outdoor space. It would have a hugely negative impact on houses around it, and would

tower above the already planning permission breaking extension they built. For the sake of the

rule of law, fairness, and justice in this case I strongly feel they should not be able to build a giant

house in essentially everyone else's eye line and garden space. If it goes ahead it would set a

horrible precedent for other wealthy and selfish property owners to ruin this historic part of Bristol

creating concrete jungles of people living on top of each other, just so he can heat another

swimming pool. I would encourage the planning permission to do the right thing and stop this

terrible decision from going ahead.

Kind regards

This proposed development will have significant permanent impact on this and thesurrounding properties, and creates a precedent by which other houses along redland road wouldbe more likely to get planning permission to build in their gardens. These gardens are an importantpart of these properties, providing a space to be enjoyed by residents and for wildlife. Building onthem will inevitably reduce the enjoyment of these open spaces for those dwelling in those housesand around, particularly if the buildings are 2 storeys. Building in gardens on redland road willhave a detrimental impact upon the enjoyment of gardens in properties along redland road, as wellas properties on fernbank road on the southern side of these gardens.

Additionally, there are already 8 flats within this demise, with only 3 parking places out front.Creating a further house will increase the need for parking, which would need to be on the streetor in surrounding areas.

I therefore object to this planning application, and would like it not to be approved in its currentstate. Keeping the building as one storey would seem a more appropriate building, and not set aprecedent with potential impact on the surrounding area.

I have owned and lived in the Garden Floor Flat at 102 Redland Road for the last 18 years. About10 years ago, instead of a small 1960s style concrete garage and small garden shed justappearing over the boundary wall shared with 104 Redland Road, the existing slab of renderedbuilding appeared, looming over my garden wall. It was far higher and larger than the planssubmitted had suggested. There is at least a metre drop in height at the boundary wall so whatmight appear a single storey building in 104 is much more dramatic in 102.I have had to become used to losing my sunlight/light in the afternoon and evening because of thisugly construction. This makes the proposed building so appalling to me - it would tower over mygarden creating a 6 metre featureless wall above the existing 2 metre Victorian stone wall. Theimpact on my garden and flat, as well as neighbouring properties, of losing sunshine and daylightin the afternoon and evening would be devastating.I attach an amended copy of the architect's plans from the Council Planning website and haveadded some dimensions which were, significantly, missing. I have added a matchstick figure, 6feet tall, to give some idea of the human scale set against the proposed construction. I also attacha photograph to help understand the impact it would have.Mr White, of Peter White Properties, clearly always intended the 'shed/garage' to be converted intoa dwelling as it had services, windows and doors built in. It has been used as a furniture store andworkshop for his workmen up to now. I always realised it would happen one day but never in myworst imaginings did I consider it would be planned to transform it into a 2 bedroomed, 2 storeydetached 'coach house' taking up one third of the rear garden of this Redland semi-detachedproperty.There are about 8 flats already in 104 Redland Road. This attempt to further develop thisconstruction for the sake of another storey and denying me, and others, further loss of light when

the existing building could be transformed into a completely adequate dwelling seemsunnecessary and damaging.I hope you are able to consider my arguments against those of a property developer no doubtclaiming to be creating much needed extra accommodation in the city. Keeping the existing singlestorey building and converting it into a dwelling would mean this part of Redland Road, FernbankRoad and Redland Grove would be spared a precedent being set where any homeowner, withside access, could build a 2 storey detached house in the garden damaging the character, aspect,view, access to daylight of the neighbourhood

The proposed building is not in-keeping with the surrounding area, houses and gardensand the rationale for building another home in a back garden is not understood or necessary. Achallenging precedent could be set with this development which could then erode the rear gardenspaces which sit within our important Conservation Area.

Creating a substantial development in a garden at such a height threatens to undermine the greenspace which has been preserved for the flora and fauna in and around Redland Road andFernbank Road and indeed the negative effect on neighbouring properties could be substantial.

We overlook a garden structure (2 storey 3bedroom house) at 122 Redland Road / 2 Fernbank Road (Application No. 09/04917/R), however,as one of the storeys was built below ground level, the roof line is at a reasonable height. If thishad been two above ground storeys, it would have severely impacted the light, view and the wholefeel of our property as it would have loomed over our garden. We equally look over a one storeygarden extension on Fernbank and this is acceptable due to its height and roof structure beingmoss based so as to fit in with the surrounding environment.

Redland & Cotham Amenities Society (RCAS) OBJECTS to this proposal. We haveread all the objections from neighbouring residents and totally agree with all the points which havealready been raised.

As a matter of principle we consider that the proposed two storey building would represent overdevelopment of the site, leaving very limited garden space.

This part of Redland is characterised by Victorin houses set in gardens. The proposeddevelopment would introduce prominent residential development into rear gardens to thedetriment of a wide area.

There will be unacceptable impact on immediate neighbours caused by over shadowing and visualintrusion. It is difficult to imagine a scheme which would have a more negative impact on itsneighbours - most unneighbourly.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

I have owned and lived in About

10 years ago, instead of a small 1960s style concrete garage and small garden shed just

appearing over the boundary wall shared with 104 Redland Road, the existing slab of rendered

building appeared, looming over my garden wall. It was far higher and larger than the plans

submitted had suggested. There is at least a metre drop in height at the boundary wall so what

might appear a single storey building in 104 is much more dramatic in

I have had to become used to losing my sunlight/light in the afternoon and evening because of this

ugly construction. This makes the proposed building so appalling to me - it would tower over my

garden creating a 6 metre featureless wall above the existing 2 metre Victorian stone wall. The

impact on my garden and flat, as well as neighbouring properties, of losing sunshine and daylight

in the afternoon and evening would be devastating.

I attach an amended copy of the architect's plans from the Council Planning website and have

added some dimensions which were, significantly, missing. I have added a matchstick figure, 6

feet tall, to give some idea of the human scale set against the proposed construction. I also attach

a photograph to help understand the impact it would have.

Mr White, of Peter White Properties, clearly always intended the 'shed/garage' to be converted into

a dwelling as it had services, windows and doors built in. It has been used as a furniture store and

workshop for his workmen up to now. I always realised it would happen one day but never in my

worst imaginings did I consider it would be planned to transform it into a 2 bedroomed, 2 storey

detached 'coach house' taking up one third of the rear garden of this Redland semi-detached

property.

There are about 8 flats already in 104 Redland Road. This attempt to further develop this

construction for the sake of another storey and denying me, and others, further loss of light when

the existing building could be transformed into a completely adequate dwelling seems

unnecessary and damaging.

I hope you are able to consider my arguments against those of a property developer no doubt

claiming to be creating much needed extra accommodation in the city. Keeping the existing single

storey building and converting it into a dwelling would mean this part of Redland Road, Fernbank

Road and Redland Grove would be spared a precedent being set where any homeowner, with

side access, could build a 2 storey detached house in the garden damaging the character, aspect,

view, access to daylight of the neighbourhood

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:The proposed building is not in-keeping with the surrounding area, houses and gardens

and the rationale for building another home in a back garden is not understood or necessary. A

challenging precedent could be set with this development which could then erode the rear garden

spaces which sit within our important Conservation Area.

Creating a substantial development in a garden at such a height threatens to undermine the green

space which has been preserved for the flora and fauna in and around Redland Road and

Fernbank Road and indeed the negative effect on neighbouring properties could be substantial.

We overlook a garden structure (2 storey 3

bedroom house) however,

as one of the storeys was built below ground level, the roof line is at a reasonable height. If this

had been two above ground storeys, it would have severely impacted the light, view and the whole

feel of our property as it would have loomed over our garden. We equally look over a one storey

garden extension on Fernbank and this is acceptable due to its height and roof structure being

moss based so as to fit in with the surrounding environment.

I feel that the proposed development will be detrimental to the enjoyment of theoccupants of neighbouring properties, both on Redland Road and Fernbank Road. A 2 storeystructure will be overbearing / overshadowing and will be an unprecedented structure in thegarden area between the properties on Redland Road and Fernbank Road. The only othercomparable structure given planning permission in this garden area is the is the 2 storey 3bedroom house at 122 Redland Road / 2 Fernbank Road (Application No. 09/04917/R) but one ofthe storeys was built below ground level, keeping the roof line at a reasonable height.

I also note that the height of the annex built at 2 Fernbank Road (Application No. 16/04571/H) hadto be reduced along the boundary with the neighbouring property following objections, and that isonly a single storey structure.

I wish to express my objection to this development from my standpoint as a resident ofFernbank Road with the proposed two-storey house coming close to the boundary of my property.Firstly, I am surprised that such a proposal has been put forward at all. The two -storey building,running the whole length of the rear of 104 Redland Road with an overall height of 6 metres, willclearly have a devastating effect on the garden areas of the properties either side. Also, it will behighly intrusive to the rear aspect of several properties in Fernbank Road including my own. Thevalued amenity of the green garden space between Redland Road and Fernbank Road would bebreached and devalued and I worry that, if permitted, it could lead to other such incursions.

As a close neighbour directly overlooking the proposed development, I am concernedabout three key factors of the proposed development:

1. Removal of the Silver birch tree. I will be sad to see this tree come down as I don't have agarden and it is a key part of greenery which is part of my outlook from the kitchen and bedroom ofmy flat.

2. Development disruption i.e. noise, dust, parking and potential for damage to my property iffelling the Silver-birch tree in point 1. It is highly likely that the development will affect my day today living throughout the proposed construction.

3. Loss of light. The development will likely create a permanent shadow over part of my flat andwill reduce light and visibility from my kitchen window.

While I appreciate the need for making adequate provision for housing in Bristol, I feel that thisapplication is not suitable for this purpose as it affects multiple neighbours in close proximity andmakes no provision for additional parking or replacing the removed wildlife i.e. Silver birch tree.

I contest that this proposed development would be unassertive and elegant.It would be intrusive and would not safeguard the amenity of neighbours. It conflicts with theConservation area objectives of retaining a verdant spaciousness with positive views andpanoramas.To pretend that it is reasonable to pursue such a cynical application based on a previouslyconstructed single garage/ garden store is a selfish exaggeration. A two story 3 person dwellingbased on this garage/garden store is preposterous.Could this be the shape of things to come?There would be adverse effects on local wildlife caused by space and noise intrusion couple withmultiple ventilation and light discharges.It would also be inappropriate to generate more car parking stress in what is already an area ofsignificant car parking difficulty. Access to an already extremely busy main road and bus routemust surely be an added consideration.This proposal is detrimental to the character and appearance of this treasured Conservation area.

An additional floor on this structure will directly overlook our garden and those of severalother houses all around. It will be completely out of keeping with all the other properties in theroad. It would be intrusive to all the similar garden spaces behind each home.The extra floor will block sunlight from our garden for most of the morning, and because of itsheight, have an adverse effect on our whole garden area.A previous ground floor extension built by the same developer in the garden of this property,exceeded the height limit of planning and already overshadows our garden. This previousextension and breach of planning was acknowledged by the Council inspector but not until thebuilding work had been completed and no penalty applied.