Application Details
| Council |
|
|---|---|
| Reference | 25/11063/LA |
| Address | Hope Chapel Hope Chapel Hill Bristol BS8 4ND
Street View |
| Ward |
|
| Proposal | Construction of a freestanding, 1-bedroom annexe to house support worker. |
| Validated | 2025-04-22 |
| Type | Listed Building Consent (Alter/Extend) |
| Status | Pending consideration |
| Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 2025-06-04 |
| Standard Consultation Expiry | 2025-06-11 |
| Determination Deadline | 2025-06-17 |
|
|
on Planning Portal |
| Public Comments | Supporters: 0 Objectors: 1 Unstated: 1 Total: 2 |
| No. of Page Views | 0 |
| Comment analysis | Date of Submission |
| Links | |
| Nearby Trees | Within 200m |
BTF response:
UNDER CONSIDERATION
There are trees within the redline boundary that are likely to be impacted by these proposals, yet no arboricultural evidence has been served.
Please require the applicant to provide arboricultural evidence.
The applicant also claims to be exempt from the requirement to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain because this is a Self-build and custom build application (see the attached). We doubt that this is the case. Please investigate and confirm if the site is listed on the Self-build and custom build register.
The applicant also claims to be exempt from the BNG requirements because the proposals fall within the de minimis exception. This is on the basis that: '(Condition 1) does not impact an onsite priority habitat, and (Condition 2) impacts less than 25 square metres of onsite habitat that has a biodiversity value greater than zero; and less than 5 metres in length of onsite linear habitat.' However, given the lack of arboricultural evidence, it is not possible to establish if this is a correct statement. However, as a single 'small' category tree under the Statutory Metric has an equivalent habitat area of 0.0041 ha, this is unlikely to be the case as trees are likely to be impacted.
Public Comments
Bristol Tree Forum (Mark CD Ashdown) on 2025-06-02
Dear Development Management,
There are trees within the redline boundary that are likely to be impacted by these proposals, yet no arboricultural evidence has been served.
Please require the applicant to provide arboricultural evidence.
The applicant also claims to be exempt from the requirement to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain because this is a Self-build and custom build application (see the attached). We doubt that this is the case. Please investigate and confirm if the site is listed on the Self-build and custom build register.
The applicant also claims to be exempt from the BNG requirements because the proposals fall within the de minimis exception. This is on the basis that: '(Condition 1) does not impact an onsite priority habitat, and (Condition 2) impacts less than 25 square metres of onsite habitat that has a biodiversity value greater than zero; and less than 5 metres in length of onsite linear habitat.' However, given the lack of arboricultural evidence, it is not possible to establish if this is a correct statement. However, as a single 'small' category tree under the Statutory Metric has an equivalent habitat area of 0.0041 ha, this is unlikely to be the case as trees are likely to be impacted.
Please publish these objections on the Planning Portal.
Regards
Mark CD AshdownChair (acting)BNG and Planning leadFor Bristol Tree Forum & Trees of BristolFacebook: facebook.com/BristolTreeForumBluesky: @bristoltreeforum.bsky.social
Not Available on 2025-05-29 OBJECT
The Panel objects to this Application and does not accept that a justifiable case hasbeen made to support the claimed need for the additional accommodation. Moreover, the site isnot appropriate for development in principle. The proposed structure would be a visual distractionset against one of the Chapel's most significant facades which are all currently visuallyunencumbered, as well as obscuring views from Hope Chapel Hill to the Polygon and causing lossof privacy to gardens in the Polygon. In sum, the proposals would harm the architectural andhistoric character of the listed building , failing to preserve or enhance its contribution to theConservation Area.