Application Details

Reference 17/05639/F
Address 10 Hughenden Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8SF  
Street View
Proposal Demolish existing outbuildings and construct a new dwelling to continue the existing terrace of houses. Hip to gable roof extension to No. 10.
Validated 16-10-17
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 27-11-17
Standard Consultation Expiry 22-11-17
Determination Deadline 11-12-17
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 20-12-17
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 9    Total: 9
No. of Page Views 57

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 07-12-17

 

 

 

 

We consider that the shape and area of the site available for this proposed 3 bed family infill house is inadequate, but we are conscious of the need to make the best use of available land. We suggest that the house be reduced to a 2 bed unit at 79 or even 70m2 on two floors, which would be more compatible with the tiny garden area available. We feel that the application is well designed and presented, but we would recommend that quoins and a raised parapet should be added to the gable wall and that it should be built of rustic brick (ideally reclaim brick) to blend it into the boundary wall facing the Common and to minimise the risk of graffiti. We recommend refusal as submitted due to inadequate amenity space for a 5 person dwelling.

Public Comments

The Neil Embleton  OBJECT

We consider that the shape and area of the site available for this proposed 3 bed family infillhouse is inadequate, but we are conscious of the need to make the best use of available land. Wesuggest that the house be reduced to a 2 bed unit at 79 or even 70m2 on two floors, which wouldbe more compatible with the tiny garden area available. We feel that the application is welldesigned and presented, but we would recommend that quoins and a raised parapet should beadded to the gable wall and that it should be built of rustic brick (ideally reclaim brick) to blend itinto the boundary wall facing the Common and to minimise the risk of graffiti. We recommendrefusal as submitted due to inadequate amenity space for a 5 person dwelling.

Unknown   OBJECT

Miss Anna Daniell 19 ROZEL ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development of the current garage area belonging to 10Hughenden Road based on the below comments:

1. Parking and access- Parking is already at a premium in the culdesac and surrounding roads, adding another houseand resultant additional vehicles as well as no. 10 losing its garage would mean additional carsexacerbating the existing parking problems.- access up Hughenden Road is narrow with no turning area at the top of the culdesac. Removingthe garage, thus removing the dropped curb, would enable parking on the bend in the road whichwould negatively impact access for residents. More worryingly access for emergency vehicles andrefuge collection/ delivery vehicles will be severely impacted.

2. Local character/ appearance- This area is made up of Victorian terraced properties, this new development would not be inkeeping with the existing properties because it is proposed that it will not have a hip end to theroof, the use of rubble stone on the front of the property and the proposal to have an extra windowin the front facade which is not in keeping with the rest of the street. The specfic details of thestone to be used on the front of the property have not been provided but will not be in keepingbecause the original stone used is no longer available.- the current garage adjacent to no. 10 appears to be in a good state of repair/ well maintained andis certainly not an eyesore as the application may lead people to believe. The current single storeygarage is also in keeping with the single storey mechanic's garage next to it.

3. Proposed development

- insufficient space to build a property in keeping with the Victorian terrace.- Insufficent outdoor space at the rear of the property.

4. Privacy and light- Whilst we are not entitled to a view, our view of horfield common will be significantly reduced. thisoutlook onto horfield common was a reason why we recently purchased the property.- The light to the back of our house and garden will be significantly reduced by the proposedbuilding.- the proposed building will reduce our privacy due to the widows overlooking our garden and therear of the house.- We are concerned about how invasive this development could be to us. We are shocked to seethat the first photograph in Quentin Alder's report was taken by someone who must have beenstanding on our property without any consent being sought.

We object to this planning application (17/05638/F) due to the above points.

Mr Jonathan Tucker 19 ROZEL RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development of the current garage area belonging to 10Hughenden Road based on the below comments:

1. Parking and access- Parking is already at a premium in the culdesac and surrounding roads, adding another houseand resultant additional vehicles as well as no. 10 losing its garage would mean additional carsexacerbating the existing parking problems.- access up Hughenden Road is narrow with no turning area at the top of the culdesac. Removingthe garage, thus removing the dropped curb, would enable parking on the bend in the road whichwould negatively impact access for residents. More worryingly access for emergency vehicles andrefuge collection/ delivery vehicles will be severely impacted.

2. Local character/ appearance- This area is made up of Victorian terraced properties, this new development would not be inkeeping with the existing properties because it is proposed that it will not have a hip end to theroof, the use of rubble stone on the front of the property and the proposal to have an extra windowin the front facade which is not in keeping with the rest of the street. The specfic details of thestone to be used on the front of the property have not been provided but will not be in keepingbecause the original stone used is no longer available.- the current garage adjacent to no. 10 appears to be in a good state of repair/ well maintained andis certainly not an eyesore as the application may lead people to believe. The current single storeygarage is also in keeping with the single storey mechanic's garage next to it.

3. Proposed development

- insufficient space to build a property in keeping with the Victorian terrace.- Insufficent outdoor space at the rear of the property.

4. Privacy and light- Whilst we are not entitled to a view, our view of horfield common will be significantly reduced. thisoutlook onto horfield common was a reason why we recently purchased the property.- The light to the back of our house and garden will be significantly reduced by the proposedbuilding.- the proposed building will reduce our privacy due to the widows overlooking our garden and therear of the house.- We are concerned about how invasive this development could be to us. We are shocked to seethat the first photograph in Quentin Alder's report was taken by someone who must have beenstanding on our property without any consent being sought.

We object to this planning application (17/05638/F) due to the above points.

Unknown   OBJECT

Hughenden Road and the surrounding streets display a fine example of late Victorian terraced housing and its original charm. In particular outside no 15 there is a blue plaque commemorating where the famous Bristolian actor Cary Grant was born. Given the heritage of the road, it is important to retain the original character of the street in the community, which attracts many visitors and walkers up to Horfield Common via this road. Policy DM29 in the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) states that proposals for new buildings will be expected to ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight. Level of privacy, outlook and daylight levels We would like to point out that currently one of the delightful amenities of the occupiers from number 9 to 19 is illustrated by the sun’s shadow line on the attached photographs. The sun shines deep into the ground level rooms until early afternoon when it goes behind the roof of number 10. The proposed dwelling would reduce the daylight and sunlight on the south facing side of the street. As shown in the images below, the proposed elevation would be overshadowing and overbearing, especially with the conversion of hip to gable roof on the new dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be overlooking and represent a large reduction of the privacy of No.9 opposite.

View from 9 Hughenden road to No.10 View from 9 Hughenden road to No.10 Shaded area showing proposed plan is overshadowing, overlooking and overbearing.

Daylight on south facing side of street Early afternoon daylight level

Policy DM29 in the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) states that proposal of new buildings should enable the provision of adequate appropriate and usable private and communal amenity space, defensible space, parking and servicing where necessary. Parking and vehicle access Another public amenity impact to mention is that the on-street parking on the road is currently at full capacity. The proposed dwelling would likely add another car or two and so add more pressure to the limited spaces on the road. Due to the layout of the road as cul-de-sac with an awkward bend from number 10, users of the road and many residents living at the top end have to reverse their cars all the way out as there is no suitable turning point at the top which is demonstrated in the picture. The current garage site with dropped kerb allows enough width space for cars to manoeuvre. The proposed plan would mean that dropped kerb would no longer be in effect therefore allowing cars to park on the bend of the road. This would create access difficulties for residents, rubbish collection lorries, and emergency vehicles such as fire engines. Having researched into recent planning applications in the Horfield area, we would like to refer to application no 17/02962/F 20 Northwick Road BS7 0UG, where the planning proposal was similar to this proposal with cul-de-sac road access and the similar size and layout of the house. It was refused on the basis that the proposed dwelling failed to accord with the character of adjoining buildings and street appeal. It was also considered as overbearing and overshadowing to the detriment of residential amenity to the neighbouring property. Granting approval to this application would be wrong and harmful to the local community. It would set a precedent that could be used in this area and bring destruction to these delightful and charming residential streets. We would therefore object to the planning application. Regards, James and Jessica Macdonald

View to top of cul-de-sac, showing current parking and vehicle access issue with the bend and narrow width of the road.

Mr Howard Cliffe 12 HUGHENDEN ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We write to OBJECT to the proposed development on various grounds and consider itsimpact to be unacceptable to the Community.We also consider there to be insufficient land to provide an adequate living amenity space andhave concerns over drainage issues.The red boundary line on the location plan should include all land necessary to carry out theproposed development.This only shows land under the current ownership of Number 10 Hughenden Road.No credence has been given to that land required from Horfield Common and transgression ontoland owned by 8A Hughenden Road for excavation of foundations, scaffolding and general worksarea.

The plans show an unorthodox newly constructed tapering rendered gable end with a change indirection on the boundary line. This necessitates part removal of a tall, brick boundary wall with theCommon.This gable must be considered as not in keeping with traditional Victorian design, due to its shape.As it will be adjacent to public space we fear it will only lead to graffiti attack and a creation of anarea of anti social behaviour (this area has been subject to homeless persons' tents in the past)Construction of this gable can only be made by accessing land outside the curtilage of Number 10The proposals therefore have a detrimental effect on the land of Horfield Common, its users and tothe trade of the Garage at Number 8A. It is a bad policy for public open space and local businessland to be used for development, albeit for the construction period without any benefit to theCommunity.Overall, the development will not result in a significant improvement to the urban design of thearea. Our objection also centres on the following areas:-storm water drainage

-foul water drainage-parking and safety-architecture-environmental

STORM WATER DRAINAGEWe know that the development is in the Surface Water Drainage Discharge ZoneNotwithstanding, any development should utilise SUDS and infiltration techniques and notdischarge water into the sewerage network.The Bristol Surface Water Management Plan recognises the nearby Gloucester Road as one ofthe 12 most vulnerable areas for surface water flooding. The Horfield area we feel has neverrecovered from the Tesco Golden Hill development when Climate Change wasn't even on theagenda.Problems with the drainage systems in the area persist to this day.The proposal mentions discharge to soakaways and landscaped areas. It is contended that this isnot feasible given the minute open space to the front and rear of the proposed new property.Soakaways have to be sited 5m away from a building or road and not in an area of unstable land(Building Regulations H3 3.25a)There is an area of the Common at the rear of Hughenden Road Garage which has sufferedground settlement and heave and is currently being monitored by the Parks Department.The pitifully small triangular space referred to as the garden cannot realistically be landscaped andis also bounded by a retaining wall to the Common. This is hardly more than 5m long itself.Rain water from the front roof will find its way onto Hughenden Road unless it is pipedunderground.We see no engineering solution other than to discharge storm water into the foul water sewerage.This is totally against planning policy.

FOUL WATER DRAINAGEThe asset plans from Wessex Water are not very informative for this area. For instance, Highwaydrainage in St Leonard's Road and Hughenden Road must somehow discharge into the foulsewer. Also, from our experience, there is a foul sewer which must run through the rear gardens ofNumbers 18 to 10 Hughenden Road. This is yet to be traced by Wessex Water following theadoption of the Private Sewer Regulations 2011.There is apparently a buried manhole in the apex of the proposed triangular plot to the newdwelling. From there on it is extremely unclear as to the sewer's direction. Problems with thisVictorian sewer of unknown diameter, depth, strength and condition have been experienced in thepast.We know that the proposed development is for a 5 person family house with sanitary applianceson 3 floors together with washing machine, dishwasher, sinks and outside taps. It is contendedthat the additional flow generated will compromise this sewer's capacity causing problemsdownstream and a risk of flooding to gardens upstream.A full investigation of the sewer network in the area is long overdue and we recommend this is

undertaken before full planning approval can be granted.We cannot see how anyone can make a judgement of the sewer capacity with the data soincomplete and unknown.The problem is exacerbated by the roof and surface water flows from the proposed developmentwhich, as previously mentioned, seemed destined to go into the foul system also.Please can these issues be duly considered?

PARKING AND SAFETYOther residents may have commented on the parking issues in Hughenden Road. The loss of theoff street parking facility by the demolition of the garage at Number 10 and the removal of thedropped kerb at the nasty kink in the road alignment immediately outside Number 10 hasdetrimental effects to all road users and pedestrians.The increased parking numbers, despite the claims of the cycle store, cannot be justified in thisalready overcrowded cul de sac with no turning facility at the top.There has been specific concern over access into Hughenden Road for decades. This route isalso used to access the Scout Hut in Rozel Road and recently there was an incident at the top endof Hughenden Road whereby the Fire Brigade had difficulty attending an emergency due toparked cars.There have also been incidents whereby emergency ambulances have been inconvenienced bythe parking situation. We have personally seen cars being manually handled to allow access foran ambulance.The proposed location of the development and the associated front walling could not be at a worseposition for access and inconvenience. Over 20 properties are served past Number 10 plus theGarage business adjacent to it. The road is also used by pedestrians, young families withpushchairs, dog walkers, all accessing the popular Horfield Common.To endanger public safety by promoting further parking as a result of this development at such acritical position in the road is undesirable and against planning policy.

ARCHITECTUREWe do not concur with the statement that the garage and store are unsightly. Their frontage is wellpresented and the benefits of off street parking within the road layout are paramount. The height ofthese buildings allows light into the road and provides a match to the single storey extension at thefar end of the terrace at Number 18.These buildings provide a key selling feature for the owners of Number 10. We consider thisarrangement to be an efficient use of land at this location.We would expect all proposed materials, samples and indeed a sample elevation panel to beapproved by relevant personnel. However, this is always going to be a second best outcome asthe original features of the facing stone and quoins cannot be replicated.The form of the proposed roofing is of immense concern. A hipped roof is a pleasant feature of thearchitecture and offers a good degree of symmetry for the 5 dwelling terrace. To destroy this is asacrilege and to additionally extend with a tall, irregular gable end is going too far.Light intake to the road, particularly in the mornings will be severely affected. The overshadowing

effects need to be fully investigated and demonstrated by the applicants.With regard to our rear garden, our privacy would be seriously compromised and we would haveserious concerns over light deprivation.The effect on the Common and the surrounding properties on many sides would be detrimental tothe area.We note the additional window over the front door which we understand to be that of thebathroom. This is not the normal design of the terrace and we feel it is undesirable. Weunderstand that the reason for the layout at Number 9 lies in that it was built for the Foreman in1897 and he may have considered himself to have immunity to the architectural design.We note the lack of emergency escape Velux type windows.We note that coloured aluminium windows are to be used but that the colour is not specified.This detail should be clarified and approved.Mention is made that the front boundary wall is stone to match existing. The existing walls toNumbers 10 and 12 are in fact brickwork with terracotta copings. Again this detail should beclarified.Overall we consider that the proposed design would be detrimental to the appearance of the areaand unacceptably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.

ENVIRONMENTALWe note that a property in Hughenden Road has invested in solar panels and would anticipate thattheir usage would be affected by the development. The presence of additional buildings like theone proposed in the road may deter further investment in solar panels. This is hardly a goodGreen policy.We note that the property is registered in a smoke control area. Do we assume that the proposedchimney will be non serviceable and the details confirming this need to be made.We note the details for refuse, recycling material storage and cycle store. We contend that there isinsufficient space at the front of the house to accommodate any of these and the policy for theirprovision in undeliverable.There is no room at the front also for any biodiversity provision, landscaping or garden creation asmentioned. We feel that there is hardly any room for even flower pots.At the rear, by the time the water butt, bat boxes (plural), screening of Number 10's extension andthe boundary fencing is complete, garden creation is also impossible. At best, there will be roomfor a small patio adding to the rain water run -off probably into Number 10's garden. There may noteven be room for an outdoor clothes' dryer meaning the occupants may need to resort to electricaldrying thereby increasing the carbon footprint.It is undesirable and probably poor policy to allow gardens to become divided to createdevelopments in this fashion.We note the statements that the space requirement for the dwelling is 99 sq.m. The provision is socoincidental that this should be verified by accurate floor layouts taking into consideration theheavy insulation and designed wall thicknesses and the computer generated survey of thetapering geometry. Notwithstanding the above, realistically there is overall insufficient space toprovide an adequate, sustainable dwelling at this location and we OBJECT to its approval.

HOWARD CLIFFEHEIDI THORLEY12 HUGHENDEN ROADHORFIELDBRISTOLBS7 8SF

Mrs Heidi Thorley 12 HUGHENDEN ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We write to OBJECT to the proposed development on various grounds and consider itsimpact to be unacceptable to the Community.We also consider there to be insufficient land to provide an adequate living amenity space andhave concerns over drainage issues.The red boundary line on the location plan should include all land necessary to carry out theproposed development.This only shows land under the current ownership of Number 10 Hughenden Road.No credence has been given to that land required from Horfield Common and transgression ontoland owned by 8A Hughenden Road for excavation of foundations, scaffolding and general worksarea.

The plans show an unorthodox newly constructed tapering rendered gable end with a change indirection on the boundary line. This necessitates part removal of a tall, brick boundary wall with theCommon.This gable must be considered as not in keeping with traditional Victorian design, due to its shape.As it will be adjacent to public space we fear it will only lead to graffiti attack and a creation of anarea of anti social behaviour (this area has been subject to homeless persons' tents in the past)Construction of this gable can only be made by accessing land outside the curtilage of Number 10The proposals therefore have a detrimental effect on the land of Horfield Common, its users and tothe trade of the Garage at Number 8A. It is a bad policy for public open space and local businessland to be used for development, albeit for the construction period without any benefit to theCommunity.Overall, the development will not result in a significant improvement to the urban design of thearea. Our objection also centres on the following areas:-storm water drainage

-foul water drainage-parking and safety-architecture-environmental

STORM WATER DRAINAGEWe know that the development is in the Surface Water Drainage Discharge ZoneNotwithstanding, any development should utilise SUDS and infiltration techniques and notdischarge water into the sewerage network.The Bristol Surface Water Management Plan recognises the nearby Gloucester Road as one ofthe 12 most vulnerable areas for surface water flooding. The Horfield area we feel has neverrecovered from the Tesco Golden Hill development when Climate Change wasn't even on theagenda.Problems with the drainage systems in the area persist to this day.The proposal mentions discharge to soakaways and landscaped areas. It is contended that this isnot feasible given the minute open space to the front and rear of the proposed new property.Soakaways have to be sited 5m away from a building or road and not in an area of unstable land(Building Regulations H3 3.25a)There is an area of the Common at the rear of Hughenden Road Garage which has sufferedground settlement and heave and is currently being monitored by the Parks Department.The pitifully small triangular space referred to as the garden cannot realistically be landscaped andis also bounded by a retaining wall to the Common. This is hardly more than 5m long itself.Rain water from the front roof will find its way onto Hughenden Road unless it is pipedunderground.We see no engineering solution other than to discharge storm water into the foul water sewerage.This is totally against planning policy.

FOUL WATER DRAINAGEThe asset plans from Wessex Water are not very informative for this area. For instance, Highwaydrainage in St Leonard's Road and Hughenden Road must somehow discharge into the foulsewer. Also, from our experience, there is a foul sewer which must run through the rear gardens ofNumbers 18 to 10 Hughenden Road. This is yet to be traced by Wessex Water following theadoption of the Private Sewer Regulations 2011.There is apparently a buried manhole in the apex of the proposed triangular plot to the newdwelling. From there on it is extremely unclear as to the sewer's direction. Problems with thisVictorian sewer of unknown diameter, depth, strength and condition have been experienced in thepast.We know that the proposed development is for a 5 person family house with sanitary applianceson 3 floors together with washing machine, dishwasher, sinks and outside taps. It is contendedthat the additional flow generated will compromise this sewer's capacity causing problemsdownstream and a risk of flooding to gardens upstream.A full investigation of the sewer network in the area is long overdue and we recommend this is

undertaken before full planning approval can be granted.We cannot see how anyone can make a judgement of the sewer capacity with the data soincomplete and unknown.The problem is exacerbated by the roof and surface water flows from the proposed developmentwhich, as previously mentioned, seemed destined to go into the foul system also.Please can these issues be duly considered?

PARKING AND SAFETYOther residents may have commented on the parking issues in Hughenden Road. The loss of theoff street parking facility by the demolition of the garage at Number 10 and the removal of thedropped kerb at the nasty kink in the road alignment immediately outside Number 10 hasdetrimental effects to all road users and pedestrians.The increased parking numbers, despite the claims of the cycle store, cannot be justified in thisalready overcrowded cul de sac with no turning facility at the top.There has been specific concern over access into Hughenden Road for decades. This route isalso used to access the Scout Hut in Rozel Road and recently there was an incident at the top endof Hughenden Road whereby the Fire Brigade had difficulty attending an emergency due toparked cars.There have also been incidences whereby emergency ambulances have been inconvenienced bythe parking situation. We have personally seen cars being manually handled to allow access foran ambulance.The proposed location of the development and the associated front walling could not be at a worseposition for access and inconvenience. Over 20 properties are served past Number 10 plus theGarage business adjacent to it. The road is also used by pedestrians, young families withpushchairs, dog walkers, all accessing the popular Horfield Common.To endanger public safety by promoting further parking as a result of this development at such acritical position in the road is undesirable and against planning policy.

ARCHITECTUREWe do not concur with the statement that the garage and store are unsightly. Their frontage is wellpresented and the benefits of off street parking within the road layout are paramount. The height ofthese buildings allows light into the road and provides a match to the single storey extension at thefar end of the terrace at Number 18.These buildings provide a key selling feature for the owners of Number 10. We consider thisarrangement to be an efficient use of land at this location.We would expect all proposed materials, samples and indeed a sample elevation panel to beapproved by relevant personnel. However, this is always going to be a second best outcome asthe original features of the facing stone and quoins cannot be replicated.The form of the proposed roofing is of immense concern. A hipped roof is a pleasant feature of thearchitecture and offers a good degree of symmetry for the 5 dwelling terrace. To destroy this is asacrilege and to additionally extend with a tall, irregular gable end is going too far.Light intake to the road, particularly in the mornings will be severely affected. The overshadowing

effects need to be fully investigated and demonstrated by the applicants.With regard to our rear garden, our privacy would be seriously compromised and we would haveserious concerns over light deprivation.The effect on the Common and the surrounding properties on many sides would be detrimental tothe area.We note the additional window over the front door which we understand to be that of thebathroom. This is not the normal design of the terrace and we feel it is undesirable. Weunderstand that the reason for the layout at Number 9 lies in that it was built for the Foreman in1897 and he may have considered himself to have immunity to the architectural design.We note the lack of emergency escape Velux type windows.We note that coloured aluminium windows are to be used but that the colour is not specified.This detail should be clarified and approved.Mention is made that the front boundary wall is stone to match existing. The existing walls toNumbers 10 and 12 are in fact brickwork with terracotta copings. Again this detail should beclarified.Overall we consider that the proposed design would be detrimental to the appearance of the areaand unacceptably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.

ENVIRONMENTALWe note that a property in Hughenden Road has invested in solar panels and would anticipate thattheir usage would be affected by the development. The presence of additional buildings like theone proposed in the road may deter further investment in solar panels. This is hardly a goodGreen policy.We note that the property is registered in a smoke control area. Do we assume that the proposedchimney will be non serviceable and the details confirming this need to be made.We note the details for refuse, recycling material storage and cycle store. We contend that there isinsufficient space at the front of the house to accommodate any of these and the policy for theirprovision in undeliverable.There is no room at the front also for any biodiversity provision, landscaping or garden creation asmentioned. We feel that there is hardly any room for even flower pots.At the rear, by the time the water butt, bat boxes (plural), screening of Number 10's extension andthe boundary fencing is complete, garden creation is also impossible. At best, there will be roomfor a small patio adding to the rain water run -off probably into Number 10's garden. There may noteven be room for an outdoor clothes' dryer meaning the occupants may need to resort to electricaldrying thereby increasing the carbon footprint.It is undesirable and probably poor policy to allow gardens to become divided to createdevelopments in this fashion.We note the statements that the space requirement for the dwelling is 99 sq.m. The provision is socoincidental that this should be verified by accurate floor layouts taking into consideration theheavy insulation and designed wall thicknesses and the computer generated survey of thetapering geometry. Notwithstanding the above, realistically there is overall insufficient space toprovide an adequate, sustainable dwelling at this location and we OBJECT to its approval.

HOWARD CLIFFEHEIDI THORLEY12 HUGHENDEN ROADHORFIELDBRISTOLBS7 8SF

Ms Sally Hitch 23 HUGHENDEN ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to Planning Application 17/05639/F.

Hughenden Road is part of a group of three roads that are accessed via Church Road; the othertwo roads being Rozel and St Leonards. The terraced houses on these roads were built on churchowned land in the 1890s. The architecture of the houses is similar, with the fronts dressed withPennant Sandstone and honey coloured terracotta clay; the design of the houses are different tohouses on surrounding roads, and the combination of this and the fact that they can only beaccessed from one road gives these three roads a distinct sense of community and an overallcoherence in appearance.

These three roads are also all surrounded by Horfield Common and a village green, which createsan attractive, green, open and peaceful setting. Hughenden Road itself gives direct access, byfoot, to the Common, and Rozel Road to the village green.

My concerns about the proposed building of a new house on Hughenden Road are detailed below.

The proposed plot

Firstly, all 28 houses on Hughenden Road were built in the Victorian era and the addition of a newhouse will not only damage the uniformity and aesthetics of the road, but also set an unwelcomeprecedent. The original architects and builders chose to build only 28 houses on this road, and assuch, must surely have considered this to be the optimum number of houses that could be fittedinto the land acquired.

The proposed plot is not a spare plot, but is part of number 10's garden. It is a very small spaceand will not allow for a house with the same dimensions as the rest of the houses on the road tobe built. The width of the proposed house does not match the existing terrace. It is apparent fromthe proposed plans that the back of the house will be considerably narrower than the front and thatthe left-hand side wall of the house will slop inwards. Indeed, it is so narrow at the back that thebathroom on the 1st floor has had to be placed at the front of the house. No other house on theroad has a bathroom at the front, as the houses were designed to have 1 large room on each floorat the front of the house and 2 smaller rooms on each floor at the back of the house. The additionof sewerage down pipes at the front of the house will be unsightly and not in keeping with the restof the road.

The proposed back garden is very small and will, of course, make the already small garden at no10 even smaller. This is another indication that the proposed plot is not large enough for a newhouse to be built upon it.

The garage and 'lean to', situated on number 10's land, that are proposed to be knocked down,look to be in good condition and blend in with the single storey building that is next to them:Hughenden Road Garage. In my opinion, these outbuildings are innocuous and are not unsightlyor inappropriate for the location as suggested. I cannot see that the building of a new house willresult in a significant improvement to the urban design of Hughenden Road or the immediateneighbouring roads.

It is also not clear from the plans what the size of the front garden will be. I'm concerned that thefront garden will not be the same size as the rest of the houses in the road. Again, this makes mequestion the size of the proposed plot and its appropriateness for a new dwelling.

The appearance of the proposed house

I am concerned that the proposed materials will not match the existing houses in HughendenRoad or those in Rozel Road and St Leonards Road. All the current houses in Hughenden Roadhave Bristol Pennant Sandstone cladding and honey coloured terracotta clay dressings around thewindows and doors and honey coloured terracotta quoins. I have noticed that the terracotta clayaround the windows and doors of number 10 has recently been painted in a creamy white colourand that the proposal has not stated that honey coloured terracotta clay will be used as a dressing.Concrete painted window and door surrounds would be unattractive and would not blend in withother houses on the road, as the majority of the houses do not have painted terracotta claydressings. The proposed random coursed squared rubble cladding will not be of the same qualityor hue as the original Bristol Pennant Sandstone that dress the rest of the houses.

Also the house will lack the small touches that the Victorian architects included such as theterracotta fleur-de-lis decorative moulds above the front door and below the bay window andfascia board.

The shape of the proposed roof - a gable roof - will not match the current one on number 10 ornumber 18's, which are both hipped. This change will alter the roof line of the row of 5 houses,which has been architecturally designed as a coherent symmetrical whole; this will destroy thecharacter.

The proposed bike and bin storage are not in keeping with the rest of the road ie no one has theseadditions to their front gardens, and as the front garden is likely to be small, they will take up alarge proportion of the front garden as well as a large percentage of the overall garden space:back and front.

Parking

I agree with all the key points raised by William Ward concerning the parking issues and accessproblems at the bend of the road where the proposed house would be built. Also whilstHughenden Road is close to a good bus route as mentioned in the proposal, the new owners arelikely to have a car as most other households in this road have at least one car, and therefore thegood public transport links will not alleviate the additional problems caused by the building of anew house.

Other concerns

Whilst the view from my house and my privacy will not be directly affected by the new build, Iwould like to add that number 9's (Hughenden Road) view of the Common from its upstairswindows will be obliterated by the addition of a new 2 storey house. I appreciate that no one islegally entitled to a view, but it will no doubt have been one of the main reasons that the ownerschose to buy their house and one of the things that adds to the quality of their lives. There is alsoan issue of privacy for them as their front bedroom would now be overlooked by the upstairswindows in the proposed new house.

I also agree and sympathise with the points raised by William Ward about the loss of light tohouses numbers 9 to 19.

For the above reasons, I therefore object to the development proposed in Application 17/05639/Fand, accordingly, I urge the Planning Consent Officer to reject the Application.

Mr William Ward 17 HUGHENDEN ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to bring to the attention of the council some concerns with the proposeddevelopment of 10 Hughenden Road that I, as a resident of the street, have.

The proposed development will reduce the natural light and sun light coming into the street asshadow cast will increase, especially in the morning as the sun rises above this gap when viewedfrom the street, thereby reducing the sunlight and increasing the shadow into the street, thismarkedly affects those houses across the street from number 9 through to 19 as it will be castonto their facades. I would consider this a reduction in the appeal of this end of the street as itwould enclose a previously open area. Whilst there is no right to a view the view that we theopposing neighbours have contributes significantly to the residential amenity and it's loss wouldhave an adverse effect.

There is already an existing parking and access problem particularly at this bend in the road wherethe proposed dwelling is due to be constructed and the street in general. Given that no off roadprovision is provided in the scheme it potentially adds two more cars to a street that already haslimited provision given how narrow the street is and the limited existing parking there. There iscurrently a dropped kerb in this location that prevents parking, this helps keep the corner free foreasier access and manoeuvring, this would be lost in the proposed scheme.

It is apparent from the proposed site plan that there simply is not enough room for another houseon this plot and so it has been cropped at an angle and is a significant compromise, a feature ofthe design that will be noticeable and jarring to the eye upon approach to the street and not inkeeping with the street or immediate area. There is also a natural break in the street here thatadds to the character of this end and this will be reduced also. End of terrace houses in this area

are also hipped, this was an aesthetic choice and will impact the visual appeal of the block from 10through to 18 This has a wider impact to the public amenity as it's clearly visible from HorfieldCommon and beyond. Whilst I won't live in the house it does not appear to provide adequateoutdoor private amenity for the house to the rear and reduces that which is provided for theexisting house. Whilst I don't know the housing density figures for this street I would questionwhether we are below the recommended figure and if there is really room for another house. It ismy understanding that building by splitting gardens is to be avoided without good cause, which Idon't see in this case.

Hughenden Road, St. Leonard's Road and Rozel Road are all of the same Victorian architecturalstyle, and this contributes to the appeal of the area. There are no new builds piggy-backing in thisway as precedent and certainly none mimicking the Victorian design. It is not clearly stated in theproposal how such a matching of the existing elevation is to be carried out as the quoining andBristol pennant stonework are unique and detailed. Any corners cut here would create a poorly puttogether pastiche that, when stood next to the existing, would stand out for the wrong reasons.Number 10 is the only property on the street with recently painted stonework as opposed to thenatural original stone finish so really any matching of the style should be matching the originalnatural stone, including the detailing. Streets to the south of this area are very different and have apainted / plaster façade and bay / window detailing, much simpler and less intricate, but would notbe appropriate in this instance if copying is intended.

The language of the existing facades also excludes a second window at first floor level where asthis proposed dwelling includes one, out of keeping with the street. Given that this is a bathroomwindow this means the glass will be obscured too so adding to it's differing appearance. Are wealso to assume that the waste pipe is to come out of the front of the house or is it going to runthrough the house to the rear or to the side? This is not shown on the proposed elevations orplans? All other houses on the street have waste pipes to the rear. There is no detail to the frontgarden too, it's not clear if there is room to include the brick and cut stone top garden wallscommon to the street. Clarification on this would be appreciated.

In conclusion, whilst I appreciate the need for more housing, I do not feel that this location is agood choice for a new house with special mention to the confined space, corner location and thatthe compromised proposed plan does not contribute to the appearance and character of thestreet. I object to it's approval.