Application Details

Reference 17/04904/H
Address 2 Fiddes Road Bristol BS6 7TN  
Street View
Proposal Double storey rear and side extension.
Validated 12-09-17
Type Full Planning (Householders)
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 15-11-17
Determination Deadline 07-11-17
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 27-12-17
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 8    Total: 8
No. of Page Views 111

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 02-11-17

We consider that this application is too large, too tall, too close to the boundary and does not take consideration of the amenity of no. 101 alongside.

2 Fiddes Road overlooking 1

The planning drawings make no reference to the existing windows on the east elevation of no. 101 and the design appears to take little account of them. The architectural character of the proposal does not happily reflect the main house, and the splayed corners and half pitched/half flat roof to the extension look out of keeping and uncomfortable. Our view is that this application is oversized for the space available and has a detrimental effect on its neighbours and the street scene. We recommend refusal.

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

The revisions to the roof shape of the proposed extension do little to resolve theproblems of scale and proximity to the boundary and the neighbouring property. In addition, theroof plan, elevations, sections and 3D model do not match up. We continue to recommend refusal.

Mrs Jenny Hall 10 FIDDES ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't consider the revised plans to have sufficiently addressed the issues, so continueto object to this development for the reasons stated in my previous submission.

Ms Christina Lopez 4 FIDDES ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL   OBJECT

The double storey extension planned is overbearing and not appropriate for the sizeand style of the houses in Fiddes Road. I don't consider the revised plans to have sufficientlyaddressed the concerns which I raised in my previous submission and therefore object to thisdevelopment for the reasons stated therein.

In addition it has been brought to my attention that the existing sewer which runs along the back ofour houses is prone to blockage where it turns a right angle in what was the garden of no 2 andthat the planned changes may compromise any repairs which might be required in the future.

Mr Constandinos Appla 8 FIDDES RD REDLAND BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am most concerned about the proposed development as the planned changes are notin keeping with the character of the houses on Fiddes Road.

One of the key points that attracted me here was the look and style of the terrace. A double storeyextension is overbearing and will block the light on the immediate neighbours properties.

There is also the issue of the sewer that runs along the back of the terrace which has alreadybeen reported by other neighbours.

Mr Alan Cowley 101 CAIRNS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

1. Harmful, significant & unreasonable loss of light, sunlight & overshadowing.The REVISED proposal STILL completely blocks ( 1m away ) a bedroom window ( which hasbeen there for 80 years ) on the East facing side of our property and willaffect all light to the windows on the East side of our house, particularly this habitable bedroom. Ibelieve it is contrary to the following;BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities ofneighbouring occupiers.DM30 2.30.6 Care should also be taken to ensure that any extension or alteration does not resultin a harmful loss of sunlight or daylight through overshadowing of its neighbours.SPD 2 Extensions - Extensions should not cause any unreasonable loss of light, sunlight andovershadowing to any existing habitable rooms of neighbouring properties.2. Extension designI believe the unconventional proposal is contrary to the following;BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the characteristics of the wider area particularly where theproperty forms part of a terrace.DM30 2.30.1 iv. Extensions should be physically and visually subservient to the host building.DM30 2.30.5 Every effort should be made to retain traditional or distinctive architectural featuresand fabric that contribute positively towards the character of the building.SPD2 Design guidelines - Any extension should respect the character of the 'terrace'.SPD2 Residential Context - that the changes are in keeping with the original house and the localarea ( terrace ) and that poor house extensions should not have a detrimental effect on theresidential amenity of neighbours.3 . By virtue of its relationship with the neighbouring property at 101 Cairns RoadThe proposed extension would result in an oppressive overbearing sense of enclosure causingharm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property when considering views from East

facing windows. I believe this is contrary to the following;BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the form, siting, materials, detail & character of the originalproperty & its curtilage.SPD2 That there is not a detrimental sense of enclosure & oppressiveness to the neighbouringproperty.SPD2 The gap between the two buildings should respect the gap of the original buildings (pre1986 garage) and should be at least 1m from the boundary. A 'terracing effect' will result.DM30 2.30.6 The extension is overbearing.

Unknown   OBJECT

have indeed been consulted, as I have no desire for a repeat of the unpleasant experience I had a number of years ago of sewage backing up onto my patio!

Thank youJenny Hall (Mrs)

Ms Christina Lopez 4 FIDDES ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL   OBJECT

1. Harmful significant and unreasonable loss of light, sunlight and overshadowing.

The proposal overshadows the patio at no.4 Fiddes Road, which is adjacent to no.2 and wouldblock light onto the patio. I believe it is contrary to the following;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities ofneighbouring occupiers.

DM30 2.30.6 Care should also be taken to ensure that any extension or alteration does not resultin a harmful loss of sunlight or daylight through overshadowing of its neighbours.

2. Flat roof with Parapet

A complete conventional pitched roof would be sympathetic and subservient to the original house.I believe the unconventional roof proposal is contrary to the following;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the characteristics of the wider area particularly where theproperty forms part of a terrace.

DM30 2.30.1 iv. Extensions should be physically and visually subservient to the host building,including its roof form,

DM30 2.30.5 Every effort should be made to retain traditional or distinctive architectural featuresand fabric that contribute positively towards the character of the building.

SPD2 Design guidelines - Any extension should respect the character of the 'terrace' particularlyrelating to; Roof form and Pitch

SPD2 Residential Context - that the changes are in keeping with the original house and the localarea ( terrace ) and that poor house extensions should not have a detrimental effect on theresidential amenity of neighbours.

3 . By virtue of its relationship with the neighbouring property at 4 Fiddes Road

The proposed extension would result in an oppressive overbearing sense of enclosure causingharm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property. I believe this is contrary to thefollowing;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the form, siting, materials, detail & character of the originalproperty & its curtilage.

SPD2 That there is not a detrimental sense of enclosure & oppressiveness to the neighbouringproperty.

DM30 2.30.6 The extension is overbearing.

Further procedural matter - I have not received a Party Wall Act notice.

Mr Alan Cowley 101 CAIRNS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed ( ongoing )extension for the following reasons;

1. Harmful, significant & unreasonable loss of light, sunlight & overshadowing.

The proposal completely blocks a bedroom window on the East facing side of our property and willaffect all light to the windows on the East side of our house. I believe it is contrary to the following;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities ofneighbouring occupiers.

DM30 2.30.6 Care should also be taken to ensure that any extension or alteration does not resultin a harmful loss of sunlight or daylight through overshadowing of its neighbours.

SPD 2 Extensions - Extensions should not cause any unreasonable loss of light, sunlight andovershadowing to any existing habitable rooms of neighbouring properties.

2. Flat roof with Parapet

A complete conventional pitched roof would be sympathetic and subservient to the original house.I believe the unconventional roof proposal is contrary to the following;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the characteristics of the wider area particularly where theproperty forms part of a terrace.

DM30 2.30.1 iv. Extensions should be physically and visually subservient to the host building,

including its roof form,

DM30 2.30.5 Every effort should be made to retain traditional or distinctive architectural featuresand fabric that contribute positively towards the character of the building.

SPD2 Design guidelines - Any extension should respect the character of the 'terrace' particularlyrelating to; Roof form and Pitch

SPD2 Residential Context - that the changes are in keeping with the original house and the localarea ( terrace ) and that poor house extensions should not have a detrimental effect on theresidential amenity of neighbours.

3 . By virtue of its relationship with the neighbouring property at 101 Cairns Road

The proposed extension would result in an oppressive overbearing sense of enclosure causingharm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property when considering views from Eastfacing windows. I believe this is contrary to the following;

BRISTOL LOCAL POLICY B9 Respect the form, siting, materials, detail & character of the originalproperty & its curtilage.

SPD2 That there is not a detrimental sense of enclosure & oppressiveness to the neighbouringproperty.

SPD2 The gap between the two buildings should respect the gap of the original buildings (pre1986 garage) and should be at least 1m from the boundary. A 'terracing effect' will result.

DM30 2.30.6 The extension is overbearing.

Further procedural matter - We have not received a Party Wall Act notice.