Application Details

Reference
Address  
Street View
Proposal
Validated
Type
Status
Determination Deadline
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 83 Objectors: 65  Unstated: 1  Total: 149
No. of Page Views 73
TBS articles

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 28-04-18

 

We are pleased that this Wetherspoons application has been refused, like its predecessors, though sceptical about whether we might see yet another application in due course.

Why? Our previous commentary was as follows:-

Wetherspoons have submitted yet another application to convert 349 Gloucester Road into one of their chain pubs.  The only principal changes from their earlier applications are the reduction of the roof terrace with acoustic improvements and the enlargement of the ground floor area with an extension providing a longer trading frontage and a covered pavement café area.  But the main problem is the fact that we, like many local residents, do not feel that a large chain pub which will attract customers from all over the city and almost certainly exacerbate local problems of late night noise and antisocial behaviour, is compatible with a family residential area like Bishopston.

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

With minor adjustments to the entrance area and the rooftop beer garden, this is the third or fourthversion of the same application. The Bishopston Society is opposed to this application primarilybecause a large chain pub outlet like this is out of place in a family residential area and would bemore appropriate in the city centre. The Gloucester Road is becoming famous for its smallindependent shops, cafes and restaurants and has recently been adopted as Bristol City'sIndependent Quarter. The format of Wetherspoon's pubs is large bar areas, open beer gardensand fully open street frontages; all of which encourage binge drinking in the public arena on agrand scale, which can often result in late night antisocial behaviour with noise, litter and worse,and local residents feeling intimidated to walk down the street and uncomfortable even in their ownhomes. We feel that whilst there are already many pubs in the local area, a venue of this scale willhave the effect of attracting customers from across the city and will concentrate the problem ofantisocial behaviour in one spot, particularly on match days. This is exactly what Bishopston doesnot want.The latest proposal has extended the frontage with a new single storey extension and entrance onthe north west corner and has enlarged the frontage trading area, complete with a pavement caférecess. We are not convinced that the screen wall around the roof terrace and the acoustic fencearound the mechanical plant area on the rear of the flat roof will effectively contain the noise anddisruption to local residents. We consider that this proposal, if granted, would have a significantnegative impact on the local residential area and we strongly recommend refusal.

Mr Conor O'Neill BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application on the grounds that there are already sufficient pubs in thevicinity.I understand that the Local Impact Assessment is intended to control expansion of licencedpremises in this area.

Ms R Boswell 7 PINE GROVE PLACE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The applicant is aware, as this is their 4th application for this site, that the location of theproposed development is within the Bristol City Council CIA (cumulative impact area) whichidentifies that this locality has a saturation of licensed premises and this policy is intended to bestrictly applied. The applicant must be expected to show that the proposed development would notadd to the stress in the area and undermine licensing objectives. Obviously , should thisapplication be approved it does not necessarily mean that a license to sell alcohol would begranted by the appropriate committee.

Mrs Liz Mckeown  13 SURREY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Adding to my initial objection, I'd just like to add concerns about the increase in anti-social behaviour in the area. Surrey Road is often used as a cut-through to Gloucester and assuch we have instances of damage to cars, loud shouting late at night and rubbish dumpedaround the street and in gardens. I believe that the Wetherspoons will increase the volume ofthese instances.

Mr Richard Buist 56 DONGOLA ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application is not appropriate for a densly-populated residential community.

The Gloucester Road is a Cumulative Impact Area so the applicant needs to prove that a furtherestablishment selling alcohol is appropriate but, given pubs with 250m in either direction it is clearthat the area is already well-served.

The proposal is too large for the area, which is predominantly small victorian pubs and smallindependent shops and cafes.

The open roof terrace, even with additional sound baffling, is too close to local houses and willnegatively affect their enjoyment of their gardens and back rooms, particularly in summer when (a)the orrf terrace is more likely to be busy and (b) they will want to have their windows open.

I appreciate Wetherspoons are generally well run establishments but this application is too largeand innapropriate to be approved in this location.

Mr TIM BLYTHE 7 CHARLOTTE CLOSE, DOWNEND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Much needed and welcomed facility for Gloucester Road. No real planning reason whyplanning should not be granted.

Mr David Jones 87 OAK CLOSE LITTLE STOKE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I believe that Wetherspoons' development of this site is a very positive thing. Thisbuilding has remained derelict for many years without any prospect of anyone taking it on. Theobjections to it seem short-sighted and riddled with self interest. I can't imagine any drunkennessor disturbance of the peace being an issue, Stag parties and other such groups are a citycentre/harbourside phenomenon. I hope the powers that be will look on this application in apositive light and that it will bring more people to an area that has lost some of its character inrecent years.

Yours sincerelyDavid Jones

Mr gary king 31 MILNER RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Dr Neil Wellman 97 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I've just noticed that there's an A&S Police report (posted 10th May).

Overall it's taken a fairly negative attitude with quite a few assumptions but note that its finalparagraph (as at the foot of these comments) acknowledges that they can be resolved viaplanning conditions.

The opening statement reads:" There is insufficient evidence for the Police to object to this proposal as I cannot provide datawhich would show that crime levels would increase should this proposed development beapproved, however, I do have real concerns relating to this proposal,..."

Thus, it acknowledges that the recommendation is not based an actual evidence (which doesrather undermine the whole thing), but then expresses a variety of 'real concerns' (I could bepedantic and say that concerns must be 'real', otherwise they're not concerns).

Nevertheless, I will comment on these concerns:

> Cumulative impact area: this is raised on the basis of the area having a 'saturation of licensedpremises' and that any new outlet should "....add to the variety of entertainment in the area, befamily friendly and not add to the stress in the area".

I maintain that a Ws would indeed fulfil these criteria as it will offer a quite (ie non sports/TV/musicdominated) and family friendly environment, good value food and drink (with many drink and menu

choices not available elsewhere) and would not 'add to stress' as two other local pubs have closedin recent years (The Old Fox & The Queen Vic).

This is where the statement that an alcohol license may not be granted is made, thus pre-emptingany licensing authority decision.

> There is no reference to how Ws would manage crime and disorder.

This seems rather disingenuous as W's documents CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RETAIL andOPERATING POLICY (OP) clearly state standard W policies and procedures and it is implicit thatthey would apply to and be implemented at this site (the objection is that that they are "...notspecific to this proposal in this location". In addition, the PAVEMENT CAFÉ MANAGEMENT PLANspecifies procedures for the front seating area in some detail.

I can only assume that some further risk assessment and tailoring of the standard documents tothe site would obviate this objection.

> There are concerns expressed about the roof terrace creating "...unacceptable noise anddisruption to the residents in the area" and "...anticipate that calls for service to the Police willbegin due to the noise".

This I find surprising as it ignores the full acoustic survey and testing which states that, with theproposed acoustic barriers, excessive noise is not likely. W's plans also set in place customermanagement procedures to prevent excessive customer noise.

May I note that similar objections were raised regarding the garden at The Annexe (which hasadjacent, not nearby neighbours) and have as far as I'm aware proven ill-founded.

> That football fans may cause trouble and create 'emergency response' due to 'flash points'.

This is a valid point but one that also relates to every other pub in the area. Indeed, The QueenVic was traditionally a Rovers congregation point but, as far as I am aware, was rarely the causeof trouble (on the whole Rovers', 'Gasheads' are a pretty docile lot).

I do however accept that on 'derby' and 'grudge' match days this may be an issue, but in myexperience on such occasions, pubs have security staff and the whole area is flooded with Policeanyway. In fact, W's OP specify that extra door staff would be in place when deemed necessary,presumably including such days, and in consultation with the Police.

> Parking will "...cause conflict with residents and create a noise nuisance for residents".

I find this objection curious as not only do far fewer people use cars to visit pubs than in the past,

but also, one could make the same complaint about just about all other commercial premises inthe area (notably the Rover's and GCC grounds which cause real parking problems). Indeed, onemay say that the more popular the GR becomes as 'best High Street in the UK', then suchsuccess would exacerbate the parking issues.

I am also curious whether the same objection was raised regarding the relatively recent opening ofthe Boston Tea Party coffee bar or Lona Grill House?

> There are assumptions that staff would not be able to manage numbers, anti-social behaviour,drug-dealing etc, deeming the OP procedures as 'unrealistic'.

I note that these have not been an issue in other W's pubs I have visited (upwards of 20, mainly incity centre or high street locations). Indeed, one thing I have noticed is that Ws seems to be one ofthe few licensed premises that actually acts of its legal duty to refuse service to drunkencustomers (either nationally or locally).

At a general level, W's OP states that there will be a duty manager supervising the bar and'walking the floor' during peak times (Thurs/Fri/Sat nights and after 2000hrs). I have seen this inevery Ws I have visited.

In addition, W's OP states that in consultation with the Police, a minimum of four door staff will bein place on Friday and Saturday evenings, between 20.00 (8pm) and closing time and any otheroccasions when it is felt necessary. These policies will be subject to review.

Drug dealing is also dealt with within the OP and allows for searches, refusal of entry and notifyinginfringements to the Police.

> That CCTV is installed in the entrance to capture shots of all customers who enter.

This is easily addressed, indeed W's standard OP states that 'fit for purpose' CCTV shall beinstalled in liaison with the Police.

The report concludes with the request that if planning permission is granted it is with variousconditions to the above, stating:

"May I respectfully request that should planning consent be granted for this establishment, it willbe with conditions attached around outside seating and drinking areas,S.I.A door staff,management plans for 'match' and event days at the Memorial Stadium and an effective reportingprocess for residents to raise issues that they may be experiencing with the premises and itspatrons."

I am sure that W's could and will comply with any reasonable conditions.

Mr Steve Dyer 36 RODNEY CRESCENT FILTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like a JD Wetherspoons pub to go onto Gloucester Road as it is the main roadfrom North Bristol into town but there hasn't been one yet. A lot of other places in Bristol have a JDWetherspoons on a main road including upmarket places like Clifton which already have 2 calledThe WG Grace and The Berkeley. I do not know why Horfield and Bishopston residents should actsnobbish and not want a JD Wetherspoons there as it is no more upmarket than Clifton.

There are also a lot of expensive establishments on Gloucester Road and too many Cafe's andTakeaway places and it would be nice to have somewhere to go that is more affordable.

Mrs catherine widdowson 75 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

Strongly object to proposed development on grounds of:

- conflict with policy DM10 of the SADMP, which requires that development of food and drink usesdo not harm the character of the area, residential amenity and/or public safety either individually orcumulatively.

- the size/scale of use proposed alone will result in a negative impact on amenity of the local areaand local residents, in terms of noise, disturbance and odours. The site backs onto a residentialarea and many of the upper floors of commercial units are in residential use. The outside drinkingareas will be particularly detrimental in this regard.

- Weatherspoons promotion of cheap alcohol and binge drinking is likely to result in increasedrowdy and antisocial behaviour, particularly on match days.

- there is also the cumulative impact, as there are a large number of drinking establishments withinthe immediate vicinity of the site, including Tinto Lounge, the Brewers Arms, The royal Oak, TheAnchor, a Brazilian bar, Zest Café bar lounge.

Both individually and cumulative, the proposed use will have a harmful effect on this part ofGloucester road. This area is predominantly a residential area, with a large numbers of families,and a use such as a Weatherspoons, which is renowned for its cheap booze policy is likely tocompromise the very qualities and characteristics which contribute to the centre being anenjoyable place to work, shop, work socialise and live.

- the size and scale of the use proposed is out of character with Gloucester Road

- On match days in particular this part of Gloucester Road can be intimidating to young familieswith groups of inebriated men staggering about the street and often lots of police vans, officersand horses. A pub such as a weatherspoons will significantly exacerbate this.

- overspill onto the pavement will cause an obstruction to pedestrians, cause a potential highwaysafety issue and again be intimidating for women and families - and again disrupt local peoplegoing about their day to day activities.

- parking on surrounding streets is already extremely limited, and on match days there is noparking within a 2 mile radius of the stadium/cricket ground - has a parking survey been carriedout to ascertain capacity on these days?

Mr Neil Cartwright 3 LIME RD HANHAM BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Glos rd is a fantastic road but it tends to die off once you reach this part .....This will bring new shops and customers into this area and make the whole road even better .

Mrs Liz Mckeown  13 SURREY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

As with their previous applications, I object to this application on the grounds thatGloucester Road should promote independent shops, restaurants and bars. We should be lookingto support local retailers, rather than large chains.I also have concerns about the level of noise and activity as a result of this proposal.

Mr Patrick Galvim 150 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Please register my objection to this proposal. Whilst admirable to bring such a buildingback into use, another Public House on the Gloucester Road would be unwelcome.

The area contains countless establishments, catering for a wide range of requirements. Most / allof which are local / sustainable businesses that would be damaged by the opening of a chain pubwith such buying power.

Additional capacity is likely to contribute to oversupply, creation of further noise problems &increased antisocial behaviour locally.

Within circa 500m of the proposed site there are the Foresters Arms, Lazy Dog, Royal Oak,Victoria (closed), Annexe, Sportman & Golden Lion outside of eateries.

Finally, I have concerns regarding noise in relation to the proposal for terracing leading onto aresidential & predominantly family area. Most of the houses in Brynland Avenue are familyoccupied, often with young children. The proposal would dramatically increase the noise to thesefamily / children on both sunny afternoons & evenings / nights. I suspect this would ultimately leadto an increase in noise complaints.

Your consideration of these points in relation to this application would be appreciated.

Regards

Mr Sean Galvin 150 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Please register my objection to this proposal. Whilst admirable to bring such a buildingback into use, another Public House on the Gloucester Road would be unwelcome.

The area contains countless establishments, catering for a wide range of requirements. Most / allof which are local / sustainable businesses that would be damaged by the opening of a chain pubwith such buying power.

Additional capacity is likely to contribute to oversupply, creation of further noise problems &increased antisocial behaviour locally.

Within circa 500m of the proposed site there are the Foresters Arms, Lazy Dog, Royal Oak,Victoria (closed), Annexe, Sportman & Golden Lion outside of eateries.

Finally, I have concerns regarding noise in relation to the proposal for terracing leading onto aresidential & predominantly family area. Most of the houses in Brynland Avenue are familyoccupied, often with young children. The proposal would dramatically increase the noise to thesefamily / children on both sunny afternoons & evenings / nights. I suspect this would ultimately leadto an increase in noise complaints.

Your consideration of these points in relation to this application would be appreciated.

Regards

Unknown   SUPPORT

Mrs Sylvia Bull    OBJECT

I Strongly object to this proposal. We do not need another pub in this area, especiallyone selling cheap beer to students with a large beer garden!...there is already so much mess to becleared up by local residents after a weekend of the local pubs spilling out onto the streets wherewe live.With a view to the noise and disruption caused by this planned development I don't think thisproposal should be allowed at this particular site. None of the people supporting this claim areLOCAL residents who will be directly effected.

Dr Neil Wellman    SUPPORT

I see that there is now a 'no objection' report regarding air quality as well as the positiveone regarding noise (and no sign of any Police objections).

The case and support for this allowing this development grows.

Mr Michael Lotinga    OBJECT

I object to the proposal on the basis thatA The application supporting information is deficient, namely the noise impact assessment. Havingreviewed this document I believe the approach taken does not comply with national standards andplanning policies. I also believe the potential impact has been underestimated, and insufficientmitigation has been designed to reduce the likely adverse effects. In my view, noise is likely todisturb neighbouring residents.B There are already a sufficient number of licensed premises on this stretch of Gloucester Roadand the neighbouring roads, and increasing accessibility to low-priced alcohol (which is part ofWetherspoon's business model) is likely to lead to increased antisocial and violent behaviour inthe area.

I address these objections in turn below.

A Technical deficiencies in noise assessment

There are a considerable number of technical deficiencies in the noise impact assessment (reportref RK2294/17280/Rev 0). Summarised below are the main omissions and errors noted, furtherdetail is provided in the enumerated sections following:1. The mechanical services noise model omits significant noise sources, and incorrectly assumesthat duct silencing can be used to mitigate the noise impacts, which otherwise exceed acceptablenoise limits by a considerable margin

2. The noise model uses incorrect input sound data, leading to under-prediction of the noise

emissions from the sources that are included

3. The background sound survey does not comply with the guidance in BS 4142:2014 as it doesnot (a) account for the most sensitive period under assessment and variability in backgroundsound, or (b) account for the potential effect of the weather on the measured levels

4. The assessment does not account for uncertainty and is also therefore not in compliance withthe BS 4142:2014 guidance

5. The assessment acknowledges that WHO Guideline noise criteria are not generally applicableto noise from commercial and leisure sources but nonetheless incorrectly compares predictedcommercial and leisure noise with the WHO criteria

1. The noise model has ignored noise sources that are proposed to be installed on the roof in alocation that is exposed and overlooked by residential neighbours. To give one example, thekitchen extract system has been modelled as a single source at the location of the duct outlet(shown in Appendix D). This is incorrect, as it ignores noise contribution from the fan casing, whichis also mounted on the roof. Furthermore, any in-line silencing within the duct will have nomitigating effect on noise emitted from the fan casing, so the proposed mitigation scheme willeffectively be bypassed due to noise breaking directly out of the casing of the fan unit. Theproposed kitchen extract system is specified as a Systemair MUBT-062-630D4-IE2. The soundpower data for this system can be viewed at https://www.systemair.com/ar-AE/UAE/Products/fans--accessories/rectangular--square-duct-fans/thermo-multibox/mubt/MUBT-062-630D4-IE2/ underthe 'Acoustics' tab (the overall sound power level quoted for the casing is 75 dBA). The omissionof relevant noise sources from the model raises the concern that the acoustic consultant has notfully understood the system under assessment and has underestimated the potential for noiseimpact.

2. It can be seen by examination of the sound power data for the proposed kitchen extract systemthat the input level used in the initial model, shown as 85 dB Lw(A) in table 3, page 11 of theassessment, is 3 dB lower than that shown in the relevant table of the manufacturer's specification(shown at https://www.systemair.com/ar-AE/UAE/Products/fans--accessories/rectangular--square-duct-fans/thermo-multibox/mubt/MUBT-062-630D4-IE2/ under the 'Acoustics' tab), which quotesan overall level of 88 dBA. Furthermore the spectral levels issued by the manufacturer do notmatch up with those shown in the assessment report.

3. a. The background sound survey was conducted over a 21-hour period on a weekday evening.The greatest potential for noise impact from the pub on nearby residents would be on theweekend, when noise levels from the pub would typically be highest, while background soundwould typically be lowest. No attempt has been made to quantify the likely variability in ambientsound levels between week and weekends. Nor has there been any analysis of the variabilitybetween different days - it is quite possible the survey period may have fallen during atypical

conditions. Therefore the background sound levels used in the assessment cannot be consideredreliable and do not comply with the guidance in BS 4142:2014, which states clearly that suchvariability should be addressed. Moreover the statistical analysis used to arrive at the quotedvalues for background sound from the survey data that was acquired is opaque and unclear in itsmethod, raising further concern about the reliability of the assessment; the report states that "ajudgement" was made after examining modal, mean and standard deviation values, but thesevalues are not themselves reported, and the 'judgement' made in each case is not clarified.b. No measurements of weather conditions during the survey have been reported, so it seemslikely they have not been taken. The report states only that weather conditions were "generallymild and dry, with low wind speeds", but does not indicate how these conditions were monitored.This is a very important part of acquiring robust background sound data, especially during theunattended overnight periods, when wind and/or rain can affect measured values. The approachtaken does not meet BS 4142:2014 requirements.

4. BS 4142:2014 requires that uncertainty is taken into account in the assessment. In the report,uncertainty is only mentioned once, stating that it would "have no significance" due to the"difference between the ratings levels and background sound levels". Since both the plant noiselevel and the background sound levels are in light of the above concerns both considered likely tohave been under or overestimated (respectively), this assertion is not valid. The assessmentshould clearly consider the potential effects of uncertainty on the assessment outcomes, includinguncertainty in the source noise, in the modelling assumptions and limitations, and around theambient sound climate. The approach taken does not meet BS 4142:2014 requirements.

5. The assessment misuses the WHO Guidelines criteria for outdoor noise annoyance to justifythe predicted noise levels of both plant and patron activity. The WHO Guidelines are clear that thecriteria are relevant to steady/continuous noise, such as from transportation sources. Furthermore,close attention paid to the evidence base on which the Guidelines are derived from highlights thatall of the research relating annoyance and sleep disturbance effects concerns only transportationnoise; noise from venue and entertainment activities is not addressed other than in the context ofrisk of hearing impairment (ie due to relatively high exposure levels). Comparison of patron noisewith WHO annoyance and sleep disturbance criteria is highly misleading and not based onevidence. The impact of patron noise is particularly concerning for properties on Brynland Avenue,which will be exposed to clearly audible noise from patrons in the outdoor areas throughout warmevening months, when they are likely to want to use their own outdoor areas for relaxation. Theassessment reports that predicted customer noise levels are expected to be equal to or above theambient sound levels at these sensitive times (table 10; NB the table caption states incorrectly thatthe comparison is with background sound LA90, when it is in fact compared with ambient soundLAeq), and would probably lead to residents altering their behaviour, such as avoiding use of theirgardens and closing windows in hot weather; according to Planning Practice Guidance (table 1)this constitutes a significant adverse effect. The assessment has not proposed any adequatemitigation for this impact, which is not acceptable in terms of the planning policy

B Risk of antisocial behaviour and drunkenness

In contrast with claims that Wetherspoon operates an effective management policy and culture toprevent antisocial and violent behaviour, the evidence in periodic news reports indicatesotherwise. Below is a small selection of recent violent incidents that have occurred either inside ordirectly outside Wetherspoon pubs in recent months:

Cheltenham Wetherspoons Moon Under Water attack 13 January 2018https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/thug-punched-victim-several-times-1106419

Cheltenham Wetherspoons Bank House attack 6 July 2017https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/manhunt-after-pub-goer-suffers-174370

Peckham Wetherspoons Kentish Drovers, homophobic attack 5 March 2017https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-glassed-for-holding-hands-with-boyfriend-in-unprovoked-homophobic-attack-at-peckham-wetherspoon-a3485966.html

Plymouth Wetherspoon Union Rooms, attack 1 January 2018https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/uk-world-news/unprovoked-assault-outside-wetherspoons-pub-1026981

This colourful record clearly suggests that there is a demonstrable link between the kind of cheapalcohol for sale business that Wetherspoon operates and violent incidents, presumably as anindirect result of drunkenness. I would expect such incidents to increase on Gloucester Road as aresult of approving this application, and urge the Council not to do so.

Michael Lotinga MSc CEng MIOA MASA

Mr Richard Martin    OBJECT

A Wetherspoon pub will have a negative impact on the area as it will increase noise,anti-social behaviour, encourage poor public health and overall have a negative impact on theGloucester Road area/local businesses/residents

Mr DAVID SCOTT    SUPPORT

BADLY NEEDED AT THIS END OF GLOS. ROAD THE BULDING HAS BEEN EMPTYTOO LONG. THIS COMPANY HAVE ALWAYS RAN THERE ESTABLISHMENTS WELL IN MYEXPERIENCE GO FOR IT.

Mrs Ruth Birkby    OBJECT

This area already has more than enough cafes/pubs/restaurants.These would be damaged by theopening of a cheep chain pub.I have concerns regarding noise and antisocial behaviour to the residential & family area.I don't believe we need a chain pub - keep Glos Rd independent!

Ms Jessica Butterworth 38 PARKSTONE AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the change of use to a public house.My main objection is the likely increase in anti-social behaviour based on the market positioning ofWeatherspoon's selling low cost alcohol.

Here are a number of recent examples of anti-social behaviour involving weatherspoons.

Cheltenham Wetherspoons Moon Under Water attack 13 January 2018https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/thug-punched-victim-several-times-1106419

Cheltenham Wetherspoons Bank House attack 6 July 2017https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/manhunt-after-pub-goer-suffers-174370

Peckham Wetherspoons Kentish Drovers, homophobic attack 5 March 2017https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-glassed-for-holding-hands-with-boyfriend-in-unprovoked-homophobic-attack-at-peckham-wetherspoon-a3485966.html

Plymouth Wetherspoon Union Rooms, attack 1 January 2018https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/uk-world-news/unprovoked-assault-outside-wetherspoons-pub-1026981

There are also a number of housing units who house vulnerable people in the vicinity of the

proposed site, and my fear is that they'll be put at risk.

In my view there are already enough public houses in the vicinity of the proposed site.

Dr Cara Broderick  239 DOVERCOURT ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like to register my full support for the proposed Wetherspoon at 349 GloucesterRoad, Gloucester Road needs an establishment that offers the customer an affordable alternativeto the other public houses on Gloucester Road

Mr Dan Birkby 60 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road has a strong independent nature. A chain pub specialising in cheapdrinks with a significant outside drinking area would not enhance the locality. Noise is a concern.There are already a number of public houses in the area.

Mrs Helen Papworth 45 BRYNLAND AVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application on the following grounds:increase in antisocial and drunken behaviour;increase in noise pollution - there will be noise from within the building, from the roof terrace andfrom people spilling out on to the Gloucester Road;safety - it will be dangerous fro pedestrians to pass as customers will inevitably spill out on to thepavement and people will be forced in to the very busy road;increase in air pollution - residents are already choked by a variety of fumes and smells from foodoutlets on the Gloucester Road and this will make it so much worse;rubbish - we regularly have to clear rubbish - and vomit - from our garden and from the street frompeople using local bars and cafes - this application will make the situation so much worse;parking - the application offers parking in local streets as a part of its transport policy. This isabsolutely ridiculous - residents struggle to park near to their homes as it is and this applicationwill make the situation so much worse;this application will change the nature of the Gloucester Road which has a reputation for it sincredible and diverse independent retail outlets. A major chain would change the character of thewhole area.

Mr Graham Wise 180 BADMINTON ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support the proposed development by JD Wetherspoon to develop the existingproperty into a public house. They are very attractive properties and their facilities are second tonone.

Miss Morag Armstrong 30 THORNLEIGH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I Object to the current application on the grounds of noise, potential to encourage antisocial behaviour, and the adverse impact of the roof garden (noise, light pollution) on theneighbouring residential properties.

The streets around the application site, away from Gloucester Road, are residential and it iscompletely inapprpriate to have a pub with licensing hours after midnight on week nights, and til1.30 on Friday and Saturday! My first objection is to the noise that would be generated by peopleon the way to / from the pub. The applicant's noise impact statement acknowledges that this issomething outside their control, and all they can offer is to put up notices asking people not todisturb others on the way home, but I fear this will have limited impact on people who have beendrinking til late.

I note the applicant has revised the design of the beer garden since previously to include acousticshielding ... but all we have is a prediction of how successful it would be, based on theoreticalnoise level provided by manufacturers of equipment --manufacturers figures are measured on newequipment, so will be louder after a period in use, particularly if not maintained properly.Furthermore site specific aspects can affect noise e.g. if there is amplification from surroundingbuildings, therefore I urge that the planning committee should not begin to consider grantingapproval without setting limits on the noise levels that will be realised and requiring monitoring andcorrective actions (including operating restrictions if nothing else works) should they be exceeded.

Furthermore consent for the beer garden being used til eleven o clock at night should be anon-starter, the noise assessment provides information that the relevant British standard contra-

indicates beer gardens being open after dusk or 9 pm.

As the change of use is not tied to the applicant and the pub could be sold on, I would also ask theplanning committee to disregard the information provided about Wetherspoons operatingphilosophy, but instead to base their decision on the impact of the pub being operated by the worstpub operator,

It's a shame, as I would welcome the building being put to good use, but this must not be at theexpense of people living close to the site and this application must not be accepted in its currentform.

Unknown   OBJECT

Mr Simon Wilton 40 MOND ROAD WIDNES   SUPPORT

I still regularly visit Bristol and enjoy the atmosphere of Gloucester Rd. This would makea great edition the the area.

Mr Martyn Howlett 643 MULLER ROAD EASTVILLE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Matthew Smith  43 CLOS AFON LLWYD RIVERSIDE PONTYPOOL   SUPPORT

Just what the area needs. This has to happen.

Mr Graham Young  51 COPE PARK ALMONDSBURY BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think this would be a great place for the new pub.Glos rd is lacking a family friendly affordable place.

Mr ryan Adams 21 LUCKINGTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Rich Hasell 62 FALMOUTH RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

As a Bishopston Resisent the Wetherspoon application has my full support. Eating anddrinking is far too expensive elsewhere

Mrs Estelle Wellman 97 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A Wetherspoon would be a welcome alternative to the loud music/sports dominatedpubs along the upper stretch of Gloucester Road and will provide a good range of reasonablepriced meals. It will also both create 50 new jobs for the area and invest in what has been aderelict eyesore for far too long.

Please do not let the vocal minority of objectors overule the less organised supporters again.

Mr Norman Stinchcombe 12 MANOR COURT DRIVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Having lived in Gloucester Road vicinity for over 40 years I cannot foresee any problemwith another public housebeing built. The present site is an eyesore and derelict. The Victoria was closed down a fewmonths ago so this would take it's place. Other areas in Bristol, i.e. Bedminster, Corn Street,Kingswood, The Harbourside are to name but a few which have a Wetherspoons. The meals anddrinks are reasonably priced which would be an asset to senior citizens. I recently came back fromthe capital London and there are many of these pubs dotted around which makes no difference toother retail premises. I feel very strongly in favour of the application being passed.

Dr Julian Pirog 81 NEW CHELTENHAM RD, KINGSWOOD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The road upon which this is hopefully built is a hugely long road and having aWetherspoon there would be great fir those that are railroaded into playing the prices that onepays in what is a very pretentious area. They normally object to every single proposed change to itand I fully support the application.I'm sad to say it but it seems that it's an area filled with very few genuinely born and bred Bristolianpeople and they see themselves as their own little principality. I'd be thankful & grateful for thechange to happen

Dr Neil Wellman 97 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE J DWETHERSPOON Co OTHER THAN AS A CUSTOMER IN ITS PUBS

I am pleased that J D Wetherspoon (W) has lodged a further application and hope that this derelicteyesore will now be allowed to be put to good use.

I have followed and supported W's application from its inception and note that they haveresponded to every practical objection concerning noise, cooking odours, customer managementetc and have jumped through all the hoops that have been placed in front of them. At each stage itappears to me that, having set them in place, the goalposts (excuse the mixed metaphor) havebeen moved and despite showing goodwill and a willingness to bow to objections, W's applicationshave been constantly refused (more on this below).

I rehearse some of these objections and W's responses to them below (for those who care to dosome research all of this information is freely available on the Planning Application and/orWetherspoon's website).

But first it is apt to state the positive case or benefits of allowing the application:

The site: it is clear that the current building has little architectural merit, is in poor condition andcan only be considered an eyesight, potential firetrap and likely source of rat infestation. W'ssubmission show how they would renovate and improve the property, including planting and softlandscaping the proposed (disabled access) roof garden, thus introducing some greenery into an

otherwise desolate stretch of road. Overall, W's has a reputation for taking on and restoring'unwanted and unloved and uncared for' buildings and has often won prizes for doing to (as withBristol's Commercial Rooms) and I believe that they will do the same for the GR premises.

Local amenities: as discussed below, the stretch of GR involved once contained five pubs, nowreduced to one specialist micropub (The Drapers) and three fully fledged pubs, all relativelyexpensive, all offering limited menus and not particularly 'family (or indeed pensioner) friendly'. Incontrast, Ws is renown for its competitive prices for both food and drink, its wide menu (includingpromotional food nights) and its family welcoming policies. Regarding beer, Ws is well known forserving a wide variety of beers, including from local breweries (a local economic benefit) and alarge number of its pubs have gained both CAMRA and Cask Marque recognition.

Employment: Ws would also bring extra jobs to the area (the application projects 25 F/T and 25P/T posts): it seems to me to be unlikely that it would create job losses in other local places ofwork. In relation to this, there seems to be an assumption that W's exercises poor employmentpractices, including 'zero-hour contracts'. In fact Ws only utilises these at the employee's request,has a good history of staff advancement to management posts and is counted as an exemplaryemployer, having been independently judged a 'Top Employer' for 15 years running(https://www.top-employers.com/en-GB/companyprofiles/uk/jd-wetherspoon/) with the commentthat:"Our comprehensive independent research revealed that J D Wetherspoon provides exceptionalemployee conditions, nurtures and develops talent throughout all levels of the organisation andhas demonstrated its leadership status in the HR environment, always striving to optimise itsemployment practices and to develop its employees."Further details of its employment practices are available at the W's website:https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/investors-home/bsr/people

Environment and ethics: what is perhaps less well known is that the company has severalenvironmentalist and ethical policies in place, including: being a member of the SustainableRestaurant Association and the Rainforest Alliance; sourcing produce sustainably and whenpossible locally, for instance requiring suppliers to operate within various animal welfare practices,including the RSPCA free range egg scheme and to sustainable fishing; being committed toreducing salt in meals and banning hydrogenated vegetable fats, trans-fats and GM ingredients;giving nutritional data for all their meals; having clear anti-slavery policies in place for both itselfand its suppliers; signing up to responsible drinking pledges within the Public Health ResponsibilityDeal, and was a founder supporter and funder of the Drinkaware Campaign; charitable activities,including donating £12m through its national support for the CLIC Sargent Cancer charity, othernational charities and individual pubs support for regional and local causes.Details of these and W's other CSR policies and activities can be found at:https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/investors-home/bsr

All in all, for the reasons above, I suggest that Ws should be welcome as a responsible addition to

our local community and economy.

Nevertheless, various commonly stated objections have been made.

First, some express legitimate environmental concerns regarding noise and odour pollution andcrowd nuisance.Regarding noise pollution: as I understand it, W's application is to open a J D Wetherspoon ratherthan Lloyds No1 outlet. This means that it would not have piped or live music and whilst it mayhave a TV the volume would generally be low or turned off completely. Customer noise is also avalid concern (although in my experience it rarely rises above the gentle buzz of conversation). Inparticular, the proposed roof garden has been singled out as a source of both noise and intrudingupon the privacy of neighbours. In response I understand that W's has modified successive plansby reducing the amount of roofspace to be utilised, ensuring that it does not overlook eitherneighbouring gardens on Brynland Avenue or the GR itself and installing sound baffling walls andfences.

As a result, according to the Bristol planning authority requested Noise Impact Assessment report(Supporting document, posted 6th April) the acoustic consultants conclude that only in extremecases may the proposed roof terrace, front patio or mechanical noise caused by plant rise aboveeither WHO or current ambient levels, noting:

For plant noise: ".... the predicted mechanical plant noise levels are comfortably lower than therelevant WHO criteria for inside habitable rooms, assuming partially open windows. In view of theabove, the impact of noise from the proposed mechanical services would be low". (pg13).

For customer noise: "...use of the beer garden areas would not result in any significant noiseimpact or effecton the nearby noise sensitive receptor locations. However, if the local authority are concernedabout theimpact of patron noise levels, an earlier curfew could be enforced using a planning condition."(pg16)

And reach the overall conclusion that: "The noise levels predicted for each of the potential noiseimpacts are sufficiently low not to cause a significant impact, or effect, on the nearby residentialcommunity." (pg19)

Regarding odours: as I understand it, W plans to utilise modern filtration plant to reduce theemission of cooking and other odours: if so, this will be a significant improvement on somecatering establishments in the area.

Regarding customer nuisance and control: The proposal to move the main entrance to the NWcorner will reduce any likely congestion to the footpath. Furthermore, W's have recognised the

possible hazards and outcomes of having an outside pavement café area and have set down theirplans for managing it. These include: limiting its opening time to 11pm; monitoring of the area bothby a nominated staff member and CCTV; prevention of it becoming an outside 'vertical drinking'area; no amplified sound and regular cleaning and clearance of glasses, plates etc; use of suitablefurniture, barriers and signage designed to ensure safety and minimise the potential for crime;liaison with the Police. In my experience of visiting W's outlets with similar pavement areas similarmeasures have proven effective and I have never seen any customer behaviour problems.

Second, some express the opinion that 'we do not need another pub on the GR'. To me this isspurious as whilst there are currently four pubs in the stretch between Pitt and Hatherley Roads,there were once five (The Queen Vic; The Royal Oak; The Anchor; The Old Fox; The GoldenLion). Of these, The Old Fox was converted into The Guru Indian restaurant and The Queen Vichas been sold and I gather is unlikely to reopen as a pub. Of the remaining four, The DrapersArms is a 'micropub', serving no food (or indeed spirits, lager of keg beers) with restricted openinghours and is not comparable with larger traditional pubs. This leaves three pubs-proper wherethere was once five, all predominantly sports TV/music venues (as are other local pubs such asThe Sportsman/Annexe, The Foresters and The Lazy Dog.

Thus, allowing a Ws would merely restore the previous status quo rather than being an additionand, as noted offer a good vfm and tranquil family/conversation/reading friendly option to thearea's current sports TV/music venues.

Thirdly, some have stated that W's attracts an undesirable clientele typified by drunken rowdyism,as one objector known to me described as 'people from Southmead', another 'students' and yetanother 'football fans' with suggestions of customers harassing passers-by and vomiting on thestreet. Discounting such distasteful and elitist stereotyping of these groups, in my experience ofvisiting Ws in Bristol and elsewhere across the UK over many years has been that, dependentupon location, they attract a varied and generally well behaved clientele.

Indeed, I have rarely witnessed any drunken or anti-social behaviour and on the two occasionsthat I can recall this (once each in Birmingham and Aberdeen), the situation was quickly andexpertly managed by staff.

Fourth, it strikes me that a major and consistent objections stems from individuals and groups whoclaim that a W's outlet would somehow pollute the perceived purity of the Gloucester Road (GR),often put forward as 'the best High Street in the UK' (although I judge the 'High Street' proper torun between The Arches and Pig Sty Hill rather than the upper stretch where this site is located).

I acknowledge that throughout its length the GR contains a significant number of independentretailers (seen as a major factor to its 'best High Street' claim), including several excellent traderssuch as a toyshop plus several each of hardware merchants, delis, art/craft stores, butchers,bakers... but alas, no candle stick makers. However, the GR otherwise comprises a plethora of

coffee shops, cafes, fast food, charity, as well as several chain 'local store' outlets such asSainsbury, Tesco, Co-op and Primark, yet lacks the sort of basic stores that it once hosted.Indeed, other than from such chain outlets, one may no longer buy items such as clothing, shoes,furniture, soft furnishings, beds, new books and so on... all items that any genuine high streetwould offer.

Finally, a further complaint is that the submission would impose another pub within a 'residentialarea'. Whilst I can accept this complaint for the Sportsman/Annexe, I feel that to claim this for theW's site is perverse as I cannot see how one can reconcile the views that the GR is both a vibrantHigh Street and a residential area. Indeed, discounting the flats above shops on GR opposite thesite, the nearest truly residential area is Brynland Avenue where the nearest houses (140-158 BA)appear to be between c76-100m distance, with most of the closest being masked by the Co-opstore or adjacent buildings. As far as the GR flats are concerned: if one elects to live above shopsin a High Street, then one can hardly retrospectively complain about people using it. However, itshould be noted that in both instances, the noise assessment concludes that there will be nosignificant nuisance (see above).

Overall, I consider that the benefits of allowing an establishment on the GR will outweigh the realor perceived disbenefits and ask the Planning Committee to bear these in mind.

Mr Pete Macey 3 SALTHROP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I fully support Wetherspoons's planning application because it will be the first of theirpubs in north Bristol and will transform a derelict building into a useful local amenity. In myexperience Wetherspoon's pubs are very well run and I have never seen any bad behaviour ortrouble on their premises. In addition their reasonable prices for food and drink will bring healthycompetition to nearby pubs and keep prices down in the area.

Mr IAN DUXBURY 57 WESTBURY HILL WESTBURY ON TRYM BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I regularly visit Gloucester Rd and enjoy the atmosphere of this unique Road . Thiswould make a great edition the the area.

Miss Louise Ball 91 LANDSEER AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Dr Bertha Lakey 147 WORDSWORTH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I hope the application is approved as I find Wetherspoons a good place to go for a mealwith my son, daughter and grandchildren or friends without having to drink alcohol or put up withloud noise and TVs.

Mr Peter Vincent 4 BRISTOL ROAD PORTISHEAD   SUPPORT

A Weatherspoons pub is just what Gloucester Rd. needs. It will provide an affordableplace to eat and drink, and will enhance the match day experience for me and many others. It willalso, hopefully, encourage other establishments on the road adjust their pricing to complete.

Mr Ben Whitehouse 56 MAPLE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1) Too many drinking establishments locally anyway - we do not need any more. There is alreadyalcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in the area. This will make it worse.

2) Wetherspoons (with its USP of cheap alcohol) is out of keeping with this area - a residentialarea with a high proportion of families. It is likely to also threaten local independent pubs andcafes. Gloucester Rd is famous for its independent retailers - it's one of the last independent highstreets standing. Once the big chains get a toehold, they will use their economic might to undercutthe competition and put them out of business.

3) An increase in noise, smells, antisocial and criminal behaviour. It will be a magnet for people tocome to the area to get drunk cheaply.

Don't be 'worn down' because Wetherspoons keep re-applying for planning permission. The samearguments apply as in their previous refused applications. Refuse them again

Mr Jon Baker OAK RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The number of outlets for food and drink in Gloucester Road has increased over theyears resulting in problems of noise and behaviour. These premises back onto residentialproperties and yet another would not be beneficial to the area because of the additional noise anddisruption it would cause. In addition Weatherspoons are promoting parking in the local sidestreets when there's barely enough for the residents.

Mr David Heape 42JEFFERIES HILL BOTTOM HANHAM BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Emily Williams 164 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Is this the fourth applicaito made by wetherspoons - each of which have previously beenrejected?!

I still strongly disagree that the area needs or wants a pub which in is known to provide cheapdrink in large quantities in such proximity to residential gardens that back on to the rear of theproperty.

Gloucester Rd is known for being made up of predominantly independent businesses, not largechains such as wetherspoons and to build one here therefore goes against the surroundingcommunity - the people who live here do so for many reasons, including the independent nature ofbusinesses and the residential feel (lack of evening noise is important to maintain this).

Furthermore, a wetherspoons in this location will only worsen the issues experienced onmatch/cricket days (which already brings chaos to traffic, parking and safety for residents), as wellas parking in the area generally (already it is difficult to park close to my own house).

Miss Kate Clarke 56 MAPLE RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

There are already a significant number of pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes and takeawaysin close proximity to the proposed Weatherspoons. Gloucester Road is a renowned much lovedindependent high street with a family friendly atmosphere envied by other areas of Bristol andsurrounding cities. The reputation is achieved by supporting small independent businesses whocare about the community they are in and are not solely out to make money. The proposed site iswithin an area that has been referred to as 'nappy valley', It is populated heavily with families withyoung children and backs on to Brynland Avenue a residential Road with lots of families and anursery which already suffers the effects of The Anchor just a short distance away from theproposed site. Any pub of this size and nature would inevitably bring anti social issues.Encouraging cheap and excess drinking in a large venue that spills out on to the pavement near afootball stadium is asking for trouble. Staying open until 1am at weekends and midnight the rest ofthe week with all the associated noise and disturbance in a residential area is very unwelcome. Acanvas screen separating the venues street drinking from the rest of the pavement can notpossibly be policed by bar staff. This is not going to be a pavement cafe! This is going to beexcess drinking on the street, the sheer fact that they are proposing plastic drinking glasses mustindicate their own expectations of what it will be like. Match days can already feel intimidating inplaces but the current pubs are relatively small so supporters are dispersed somewhat and don'tbuild up the crowd mentality that might be seen in and around a pub the size of the proposedWeatherspoons. I have very serious concerns about this proposed 'development' as a genuinelocal. 'Supporting' the application when you don't even live in Bristol let alone the more local areais ridiculous. They are clearly connected to Weatherspoon's and I personally feel any commentsand opinions from so far away should be disregarded as erroneous and irrelevant!

Ms Fiona Reid 61 DONGOLA RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a local resident, I'm concerned about having another public house on Glos Rd in themiddle of a residential area. There are already 2 public houses within a minute's walk north andsouth of the proposed new Weatherspoons. In addition, Weatherspoons will attract the pub crawlcrowd and the area is already blighted with anti social noise especially at the weekend. I see noneed to have another public house in this are when there are so many already nearby. People livehere!Also, the area is already experiencing severe restrictions on residents ability to park their carsnear their own houses and residents are calling for an RPZ. I don't think the proposed pub willhelp especially as I understand that there will be no parking provided by Weatherspoons for itscustomers.

Dr Peter Box 11 LANCASHIRE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I believe that there is already a surfeit of public houses, cafes coffee bars etc. in thisarea. What is desperately needed is more housing. In keeping with the large majority of propertieson the Gloucester Road, this site could be developed as a combined commercial and residentialbuilding, however, a public house would not be suitable for such a development.

Miss Su Howe 92 MONTREAL AVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I've been in some lovely weatherspoon pubs where they have sympathetically restoredsome lovely old buildings which otherwise would be left to decay. The proposed site is an absoluteeyesore and needs so much work doing to it I can't see anyone else ever wanting it.

Miss Emma Leighton-Carey 322A GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live directly opposite the site and fully object to this proposed planning application.

Firstly, I am concerned about the noise impact from the site at all times, especially later into thenight as it is proposed the pub should stay open until 12:30am on weeknights and even later onweekends. The area is full of professionals and families who would be disrupted during theworking week. I feel I would be unable to open my windows due to the noise from the terrace andseating area proposed at the front leaving me unable to fully enjoy my property.

At the moment I feel the area is quite quiet in the evenings and late into the night and quite a safearea to live. Wetherspoons target a 'binge drinking' community by offering cheap drinks deals andI wouldn't feel safe with this on my door step, especially at night. I think that having aWetherspoons on Gloucester Road will increase anti social behaviour and crime in the area,especially on match days. Not only would this affect residents surrounding the site but it would putstrain on the emergency services.

There is already an issue with parking in the area and bringing such a large commercial chain isonly going to bring more cars and parking issues with it.

I know Bristol City Council have already had complaints about access on Gloucester Road due topeople leaving wheelie bins out as this restricts access on the pavements, especially forwheelchairs, mobility scooters and push chairs. Proposing to put an outside seating area andencouraging crowds of people on the street is not going to help this problem in any way.

The proposed application doesn't just negatively affect the residents in the area but theenvironment also as having such a large amount of people from the pub is going to bring litter,especially from cigarette butts.

Finally, putting a Wetherspoons on Gloucester Road will negatively impact the local andindependent businesses. Gloucester Road is known for its independent shops and restaurantsand Wetherspoons is not in keeping with this. Business would be taken away from theindependent restaurants, cafes and pubs in the area which could have a detrimental impact on thearea in the long term.

I feel strongly that the Planning Department should refuse this application and any futureapplication made by JD Wetherspoons.

Mr Craig Broderick 239 DOVERCOURT ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am in fully support the proposal as Gloucester Road is in easy 5 minute commute onfoot from my property in Dovercourt rd . I have been to many JD Wetherspoon establishmentsother the years up and down the country and have admired the way they often turn around anabandoned old building into a wonderfully appointed meeting hub within the local community, theyhave restored the likes of disused bingo halls and cinema houses and kept the existingarchitecture and often photos dotted around to show the history of the building and its surroundingarea . The reason that I and others seek out Wetherspoon when visiting other towns and citiesthroughout the country is that the food and drink are extremely reasonably priced something thatother nearby establishments such as the Anchor aren't yet they seem to have a monopoly in thearea and keep there prices extremely high.I also enjoy fact that you can hold converse whilst not having to notch up a level due to excessivenoise from loud sports coverage or loud music which is far more sociable in my opinion.In this day and age it's also quite refreshing to actually see a new establishment such as thisopening when so many other establishments seem to be closing down daily thus limiting thechoice of the public in general.

Mr Scott Slocombe 12 COOK CLOSE OLDLAND COMMON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Should have a decent pub up there be good for business

Mr Robin Bowers 16 EMBASSY WALK ST GEORGE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We have lost so many licensed premises in Bristol so it would be nice to have somenew ones

Mr Paul Jerred 4 BROAD CROFT BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Every pub on this section Gloucester Road is extremely expensive since the closure ofThe Queen Vic. A cheaper alternative is required.

Mr Martin Hill 23 ST DAVID'S CRESCENT BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support this apple, it will turn an eyesore of a building into a vibrant business creatingvaluable jobs

Mr Craig Davies 144 BEDMINSTER DOWN ROAD BEDMINSTER DOWN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I was born in Horfield and too many pubs have closed in the area (The Golden Bottle inLockleaze closed for good on Sunday). The remaining pubs are out of the price range of a lot ofpeople in the area. A Wetherspoons will enable residents to be able to afford to socialise again.

Mr Martin Sealey  78 ROYAL ROAD MANGOTSFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Glos Road needs this

Mr Robert Strange  132 GRITTLETON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Mike Slade 25 GAYNER RD FILTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Darren Marsh 23 KINGS MEAD ROAD SPEEDWELL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Think Gloucester Road could do with a weatherspoons. To many coffee shops & cafebars all over priced at least weatherspoons caters for the working class people

Mr Mark Avent 2A CRAVEN CLOSE LONGWELL GREEN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It would be a welcomed addition to Gloucester Road, a pub that sells affordable drinksand food.

Mrs Diane Vaughan 10 MEADOW GROVE SGIREHAMPTIN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I honk it will be beneficial to the area and bring in people from around the area and helpto make Gloucester Road the bustling shopping area it used to be when I was younger.

Mr Paul Johnson 36 SHELLARD ROAD FILTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Kevin Price 14 SCHOOL CLOSE BANWELL   SUPPORT

Mr Paul Bradburn  THE COTTAGE HORTHAM LANE ALMONDSBURY   SUPPORT

Mr Chris Brown 49 OVERNDALE ROAD DOWNEND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

As an senior citizen and a regular visitor to Gloucester Road the only thing thatdisappoints me about the area is its lack of cheap food and drink. Gloucester Road is nice butexpensive therefore I support Wetherspoons in their application for a new establishment.

Mr Mike Greenhill 46 REPTON ROAD BRISLINGTON   SUPPORT

Perfect place for a thriving area

Mr Aaron Ball GATCOMBE DRIVE, STOKE GIFFORD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Warren Gardner 70 MEADOW VIEW FRAMPTON COTTERELL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr gary peters 1 WOODHOUSE GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Bubs Sanderson 45 TREGARTH RD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The David Jeal 10 COPLEY GARDENS LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

With all our local pubs shutting in Lockleaze a Wetherspoons on Glos Rd would begreat news

Mr Ben Searle 22 BS5 6TT   SUPPORT

I believe another drinking establishment is needed which is reasonable in price foreveryone to use.

Mr Tom Cook 20 GLADSTONE ST BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A well priced family friendly venue would improve this area greatly, yes there are plentyof restaurant and bars but all are overpriced and not especially family friendly . jD wetherspoon areknown good employers and the jobs boost would be good for local people and students

Mr Nigel Preen 6 RUSH CLOSE BRADLEY STOKE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I fully support this proposal, Gloucester Road is a great part of the city of Bristol, thereare still a lot of buildings that need a good refurbishment on this road , great idea , gets my vote

Mr Ben Newman  FILER CLOSE BATH   SUPPORT

In support

Mr Nick Howells 272 CONISTON RD PATCHWAY BRISTOL   SUPPORT

About time we had competion in this area and will bring more people into glos rd to useother shops.

Mr Ryan Coyne 22 HUDDS HILL ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Shane Jelf FLAT 1, BEDDOE HOUSE COPLEY GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it would be a great idea to have a witherspoons on gloucester rd as it wasmentioned before but didnt happen that was a shame it would be a great addition

Mr Patrick Carolan 81 THORNLEIGH RD, HORFIELD, BRISTOL HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I've lived on this area for over 20 years and seen a marked increase in the number ofbars, cafes and restaurants on the Gloucester Road. Many of these premises have replacedshops serving the day to day needs of the local community. I don't see this development bringingany net benefits to the area when it is already well served by existing premises.

Mr Richard Pullin 121, PARKWALL ROAD WARMLEY BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mrs Deborah Duggan 60 THE LAURELS MANGOTSFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr lee sumner 130 DOVERCOURT RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Good value food & drink for the local area.

Mr bob doings 7 CRABTREE WALK BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Most welcome a decent pint for a fair price...nearly 4 pound a pint in other pubs....that'snot fair trade wetherspoons you will be welcomed

Mr Nigel Walker 5 CHEDWORTH KINGSWOOD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A welcome cost effective addition next door to bland over priced establishment.

Mr Keith Harris  47 SIDELANDS ROAD DOWNEND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoon would be welcome on this part of Gloucester Road

Mr Joe Lally 217 KELLAWAY AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support this application. Prices on Gloucester Rd are expensive. Some young and oldpeople can't afford the prices so this public house offers food and drink at a reasonable price.Every other main Rd in Bristol has a weatherspoons bar Gloucester Rd.

Mr Daniel Stokes 26 RONAYNE WALK BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Shaun McGroarty  24 MILLFIELD MSN   SUPPORT

As a user of gloss tee road this is a needed place for food and drink. Weatherspoonsbring so much to a high street .

Mrs marion kardasz 355   OBJECT

I object strongly to the proposal, which will do nothing to enhance the local area and willin fact have a detrimental impact.

I work in Craft Works and already see plenty of disturbing behaviour from inebriated people -abusive language, physical confrontations and the local area being used as a toilet (not to mentionthe rubbish left behind along with vomit and worse). We have also seen both the police andambulance service called to deal with the consequences of drunkenness.

Weatherspoons is infamous for its cheap prices and having the pub open all day will simplyexacerbate the problems we already face. There are already plenty of places to eat and drink andrather than providing more choice the cheap prices of food and drink will inevitably drive localindependent businesses out of business.

Weatherspoons may possibly attract families during the day but at night time the opposite will bethe case, it certainly won't be a convivial family atmosphere then. The late night drinking,especially in the open area, the noise of deliveries, the smokers - all of these things will have anegative impact on local residents, particularly the young family in the flat above my workplace.Weatherspoons clearly acknowledge this as can be seen from theri own risk assessment.

This development will bring nothing but problems for the residents and workers in the area and it isparticularly illuminating to see the number of supporters who neither work nor live in the vicinity ofthe pub and will not suffer the consequences of this misguided proposal.

Mr Mark Richards 24 BRENTNALL WAY FISHPONDS   SUPPORT

I think it's right that consumers in the area should be able to go somewhere affordablefor a meal or drink, it will provide competition to the overpriced places nearby and provide jobs.

Mr Steven Purnell  272 GLOUCESTER RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Gloucester Rd is long overdue a cheap priced food & drink venue where us locals cango to socialise and entertain, they are an extremely well respected establishment all over thecountry and i fully support this application

Mr Martin Townsend 35 STROUD ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It would add more competition to the high prices of the local pubs currently there

Mr David Jones NEVILLE ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Adrian Smyth  185 JUNIPER WAY BRADLEY STOKE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A good Witherspoon is a good thing, much needed on Glous road.

Mr Elliott Bradburn 6 WHARFEDALE THORNBURY   SUPPORT

Mr Richard Maddalena 355   OBJECT

We object to the proposed development to change the site use from A1 to A4 as a pub,this on the grounds of noise, access, disabled persons restrictions to parts of the development,loss of light and over dominance in size of seating capacity in relation to other similar hospitalityunits in the area.As the owner of the joining land we object firstly to the proposed ground floor extension as it wouldhave serious implications for access and parking on our property. The proposed extension wouldblock the view of the road when entering and exiting by van or car our property. This would putpedestrians at serious risk, this danger would be compounded by the only entrance to the newdevelopment sited next to the end of our drive and with the bus stop next to our drive on the otherside.This extension would remove the opportunity for the current parking bay which could have beenused for disabled parking rather than what they suggest of up a side road some where.The height of the extension would reduce light to our property.Also the open door policy will allow all the internal noise to escape next to our property and alsothe creation of the pavement Cafe as part of this extension would bring extra unrestricted noise tous as neighbours.The plans do not provide for at least 1 metre wide direct route from the pavement to the entrancerequired in the management plan. The temporary barriers defining a boundary on match dayswould be a risk.The relocation of the first floor fire escape open landing would now bring it level with the bedroomand bathroom windows of our property with a loss of privacy.The location of recycling in the new extension now being close to our property would create noiseand odour issues.

The extension would also block the view of the bill board on the side wall of our building which hasplanning and on which rates are paid.

We question the relevance of Spectrum Planning Noise impact Assessment initial report dated 9thmarch 2018 as it has used a computer generated simulation to give estimated readings of noiselevels. This was compiled in accordance with statement 2 which states among other things"Mechanical services plant would be located externally towards the rear on the first floor flat roofand surrounded by 2.4 m high acoustic fence" when the ME plant document show only someitems to go in that area. Now all the toilets are situated next to our property and on the same levelas flat 355 with all extraction from them through the roof in to open air for both sound and odourextraction. Also at this new much higher roof level the two main extraction fans from the kitchenare located, which produce the highest DB levels of all the plant, this outside plant is not shown onthe main plans or simulated plans so noise and odour will travel much further than indicated asappendix B do not show this equipment in place.They have only considered the open door policy on the ground floor and not the covered seatingarea on the first floor which they fail to include in the first floor description only referring to an openair roof terrace.We currently know the level of noise generated by ten people waiting on the bus stop outside 355is bad enough, so 500 plus people a few metres away will have serious health implications.

We challenge the design and access statement for lack of information on issues such as proposedopening hours, number of staff employed, permanent and part-time. No reference to the maximumnumber customers that will be accommodated at one time.Also on the front and inside page of the statement it refers to 365 Gloucester road as the locationnot the site address 349-353 Gloucester Road this being previously two retail units, both with classA1 use not one unit as implied.In the ground floor extension statement it implies it replaces space used for external seating, whenin fact this would replace valuable open space for current access and parking for the property.First Floor Existing Flat Roof statement is not true as the existing building does not occupy 100%of the site area, and all mechanical plant will not be housed in its own area as claimed.Smoking area they state is a legal requirement and they set aside an area for this purpose on theground floor which is an integral part of the ground so passive smoke would blow into the mainarea with an open door policy and the open outside recess area has restricted use. They sayspace on the first floor terrace would be available during all pub opening hours when they claimthe terrace would be closed at a time to be agreed.Accessibility for the disabled is a legal requirement which they fail to deliver with the current planswith only one disabled toilet on the ground floor. They also claim the new roof garden will be aunique feature and as such will be accessible to those with any disabilities which affect mobility,but this will not be the case as there is no means of access to the first floor by the disabled andthis also applies to toilet provision for the disabled on the first floor along with the refuge area notindicated on the plans.

The Transport Statement in reference to existing use states "There is no parking space on site"when the picture in the document shows a van parked on site. It also states incorrectly thepremises are located at 365 Gloucester road. It states again there is no parking on site whenpreviously there was up to four cars parked plus motor bikes on site. It also claims off streetparking in Brynland Avenue and Longmead Avenue to be available for parking, when residentshave stated this to not be the case. The old main entrances were never directly on to the foot wayand the new entrance would be very near the pavement.

On the planning application Form we note the following,On item 6 the last two questions "are there any new public rights of way to be provided adjacent tothe site?"and "Do the proposals require any creation of rights of way?" they answer NO to bothquestion when in the Transport Statement on Access page 4 they state "exits by the side and reardoors is for means of escape only" which is on to land they do not have a right of way andtherefore exits could be blocked at any time. Then you would only have a means of escape in afire through the front door and if the floor plans are correct with the number seating to be seatedplus staff there could be over 500 plus people to evacuate through one exit with two sets of doubledoors.Item 7 Waste Storage and Collection the applicant claims to operate an award winning scheme forrecycling but does not state how this will be collected or how they intend to remove it form therecycling area other than out the main entrance.Item 18 in previous applications the existing gross internal floorspace was A1 213.0 metre sq withstorage 513.7 making a total 726.7 sq m now the existing gross internal floorspace is 1068.6which is equal to the floorspace after development which is incorrect as they claim there will be noincrease or decrease when they are applying to increase the floor area.

In conclusion therefore when J D Wetherspoons state in recent years in some of their pubs foodsales are now over 50% of total sales and their coffee sales now approximately match those ofCaffe Nero and about a quarter of Starbucks and they now believe they have 6 per cent of the UK'chain' coffee market, this confirms they are likely to compete with cafes and restaurants and pubsalready in large numbers on Gloucester Roar thus creating over-intensification of food outlets andall the associated problems that go with that.

The planning office should refuse this application as the proposed development fails to respondappropriately to the current characteristics of the site in relation to its location as part of theindependent rows of shops on Gloucester Road. The size and nature of this development wouldresult in harm to the living condition and amenity of neighbouring occupiers and local community.This planning application conflicts with the cumulative impact area directive which would notenhance and improve the place in which we live our lives.

Mr Robin Kellett-Navellou 21 CRICKLADE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to this speculative planning application.

The design including a roof terrace will be disruptive and be entirely out of keeping with the area.There are already plenty of pubs on Gloucester Road already and I note this is not the first time MrTim Martin has tried to leverage one into the area.

His outlet on Whiteladies Road is an unpleasant addition to that street with gangs of middle-agedmen outside and I fail to see how such an addition to Gloucester Road will benefit this family-dominated area.

I would also note that this company was a vocal supporter of Leave whereas the Ashley Ward inBristol was 7:1 in favour of remain. It's the equivalent of putting up a vast EU flag in Lincolnshire.

Ms J Maddalena 355B GLOUCESTER ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to strongly object to the proposed application of a change of use from aretail unit to a public house. This new design does nothing to address the concerns raisedpreviously on the size and impact such a business would have on Gloucester road and theimmediate residential area.I live in the flat directly next to the proposed development. Our property's windows are only a fewmetres away from the propsed entrance, cafe terrace and roof garden. I have great concern aboutthe noise levels generated from a public house of this size which looking at the plans could have acapacity of nearly 500 people. There is already disturbance at night from people catching the busoutside our property; normal chatter is clearly heard from the front of the building and when peoplehang around our driveway the noise is amplified by the echo created by the tunnelled effect of thebuildings 349 and 355. This is surely only going to be exacerbated by people leaving and enteringespecially when intoxicated.Having read their risk assessment for the terrace cafe area our fears of excess noise, drunkenaggressive behaviour and damage to property are clearly not unfounded. The proximity to thebusy Gloucester road, the bus stop, narrow pavement and our driveway would mean risk ofaccidents to the general public and patrons of the pub would be increased. Their propsedmanagement plan for this area would be difficult to implement at all times. Saying outside areaswould be well lit at all times to increase security would potentially cause light pollution which wouldeffect our bedroom windows and that of residential properties opposite, given their desire to keepoutside areas open until 11pm. They also say to reduce risk of damage and injury they will removeoutside furniture after closure but I suspect moving tables and chairs after 11pm will also causealot of noise. There is also no mention of the risks of smoking on local residents. I am alsoconcerned that the cooking smells, smells from the bins (proposed location by our drive and

window)and toilets will affect our quality of life. If this development goes ahead, I can't see meever being able to open my windows again especially in the summer.I realise the application is for building and not licensing but if you grant change of use surely theygo hand in hand. As it is in a Cumulative Impact Area how would the council justify granting alicense to a business of this size with these opening hours and refusing other cafes andrestaurants nearby? This section of Gloucester Road is surrounded by largely residentialproperties with young families (there are three primary schools in walking distance to this site).Our walk to school in the morning already sees us having to avoid vomit and broken glass on thepavement. We already witness drunken behaviour in the early evenings walking home. Thedisturbance from people making their way home after visiting this establishment will be a realproblem. There is also no mention this time of deliveries. If these are frequent and early morningas main access only appears to be at the front of the property (next to us) we will likely bedisturbed then as well.Whilst I recognise that the building has become derelict and an eyesore and would welcome itsregeneration, this application is not the right use for the site.The community is already well servedby local restaurants, cafes and pubs. Given that Wetherspoons is a national chain promotingcheap food, limitless coffee and all day alcohol the pressure on these other small independentbusinesses could be too great and trigger closures which would ultimately lead to less choice forlocal residents and change the character of Gloucester road which we have all come to appreciateand enjoy.

Mr Peter Tomlinson 15 GOOD SHEPHERD CLOSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

My concern with this proposed development is that the section of Gloucester Road onwhich the property that is the subject of this application is situated is one that, on certain days andat certain times on those days, has an unusual and somewhat disturbing pattern of use. ThePolice have paid some attention to this section of road, with the result that usage has to someextent calmed down (for example cars with extremely loud and therefore illegal exhausts nowmostly keep away), but recently I have not seen any police presence on the road with the intentionof ensuring that road traffic obeys the law.

The problem section of road runs from immediately north of the junction with Nevill Rd to thejunction with Filton Avenue. The traffic light controlled junction with Muller Rd is mid way along thissection of Glos Rd.

The typical antisocial behaviour occurs when a car driver travelling north past the junction withMuller Road sees that Glos Rd is clear at least as far as the Muller Rd junction - and then he orshe accelerates, driving well in excess of the 30mph limit. The worst case is when the same driversees that the road may be clear until well past the Muller Rd junction - he or she then drives evenfaster.The section of road used for the 'showing off' of a driver's smart vehicle has the site of theproposed new public house midway along it, and, unless measures are taken to prevent personsattending the public house from observing the highway, the public house is well situated forpersons attending the public house to admire (sic) the vehicle being demonstrated.

Rather than simply ask that the proposed new public house development be refused permission, I

request that the developer and the operator be required to ensure that no part of the upper storiesof the building, or of any roof area accessible to the public, allows a person or persons inside thebuilding to view any part of Glos Road.

Mrs Julia Baker BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

this area has reached saturation point With eating and drinking outlets. The balance ison a knife edge and granting permission for another, especially of this nature and size, would tipthe balance too far into the negative as far as being able to enjoy normal, decent quality of life inthis neighbourhood for most residents. The consequences of alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviourinclude noise at all times of the day and night, fights, vomit, urine and excrement on the pavement,or worse in front gardens. We are just about coping at present. Please consider this very carefully.

Mr ashley wood 2 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Hi, not very keen on the proposed public house. Noisy, associated drinking problems(including violence, littering) plus situated next to a bookies. We have enough pubs along thatstretch and too many bookies. Neither are good for public health.

Councillor Eleanor Combley BRISTOL CITY HALL COLLEGE GREEN BRISTOL   OBJECT

Whilst I would be keen to see this site coming back into use, I do not think its change ofuse from retail (A1) use to a drinking establishment (A4) is appropriate.Although the presence of a Cumulative Impact Area on this stretch of the Gloucester Road is forlicensing to enforce, the reasons for its imposition (the potential for increased public nuisance andcrime and disorder, and the close proximity of residences and a risk of encroachment into thenormal sleeping times of local residents) are relevant to decisions about the class of use.There are already issues in the area with alcohol-related crime, anti-social behaviour (particularlyon match days), nuisance from noise and smells from existing establishments, flytipping and otherwaste issues and this application, if granted, would have a high likelihood of adding to thoseissues, particularly noise nuisance, given the outdoor terraces and the opening hours requested.In addition the outdoor area at the front of the building creates a real risk of obstruction topedestrians from customers over-spilling, and the parking plan is not sufficient - nearby streets arealready very heavily crowded with parked cars.

Mr John Wilkins 69 DONGOLA ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoons offer good quality food nation wide, resonably priced with no loud music.

Councillor Tom Brook CITY HALL, COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL BS1 5TR   OBJECT

The last time Wetherspoons made an application for this site I commented that, whilst itwould be nice to get this building back into use, there were issues such as the over-intensificationof this type of outlet in the area, the fact that this is a Cumulative Impact Area, anti-socialbehaviour, and noise. To me, none of these issues have changed or have been mitigated by thenew proposal and so I remain opposed to it. I shall expand on my opinions below:

Firstly, the positives. This building is a derelict eyesore, and it would be great to have it back intouse. Having a pub (or indeed any business) here would also provide jobs. And I do acknowledgethat some effort has been made to mitigate noise through acoustic shielding and plants on theroof.

Whilst not opposed in principle to the development, there are many negatives to this application,and I believe they strongly outweigh the positives:

- Firstly, and arguably most importantly, Gloucester Road is a Cumulative Impact Area. Thismeans that the default position for new alcohol outlets should be to refuse, with extreme mitigatingcircumstances needed to approve the application. This certainly does not apply here.

- Gloucester Road is a proudly independent row of shops, and is one of the jewels in the crown ofBristol's retail offering. A national chain (of any type, pub or otherwise) coming to the roaddamages the independent ethos and brings the danger of cannibalising trade from elsewhere onthe high street. With regards to this specific application, Gloucester Road already has aproliferation of pubs and bars, and Wetherspoon's will also be likely to compete with the cafes and

restaurants too. In addition, Gloucester Road already has many pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants.Therefore, I believe this development would represent over-intensification on the high street.

- I have concerns about the impact on anti-social behaviour that this development would bring.The police already have to deal with alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in the area, and thecommunity, traders and Bristol Waste already have to clear away the mess that is left behind. Anypub is likely to bring with it associated alcohol-related anti-social behaviour, and a Wetherspoon'sis likely to be worse than most given its larger size and lower prices. Therefore, this developmentis going to make the anti-social behaviour problem worse.

- Residents have also raised specific concerns about match day anti-social behaviour. We alreadyexperience more issues on match days (both football and cricket), and this development can onlyexacerbate the problem.

- It is very likely that the ground floor outdoor area will result in overspill onto the pavement,making an unsafe environment for passers-by, who will be caught between (drunken) revellersand the busy road. I do not feel that the proposed pavement café management plan adequatelymanages the possibility, or impact, of overspill/overcrowding.

- Not only will a large, cheap outlet for alcohol result in anti-social behaviour, but there will be anadverse impact on public health that should be taken into consideration too.

- In the transport statement, the applicant is promoting on-street parking along nearby roads for itscustomers. The parking situation in the area is already extremely difficult, with resulting frustrationand even confrontations between motorists. It is irresponsible of Wetherspoon's to be promotingeven more on-street parking locally.

- I am also worried about the impact of odour from the development. Residents backing on toGloucester Road already suffer from the impact of smells from businesses, so it should beensured that this application would not exacerbate the problem.

- The final major issue I am concerned about is noise. The comments from the residents who backonto Gloucester Road are overwhelming, and their individual examples are useful to illustrate theissue. Given the semi-enclosed nature of the roof terrace it is likely to become an echo chamber.Even the applicant's noise impact assessment acknowledges that there will be an impact onresidents from the terrace.

- Many of these issues, such as noise, anti-social behaviour, public health, etc. will be made worsein comparison to other nearby pubs due to the excessive and inappropriate opening hoursproposed.

To close, I said on the previous application, whilst Wetherspoon's establishments can and do have

a place in some retail areas, I do not feel that this location is suitable, nor is the application itselfsatisfactory. Therefore, I believe that the application should be denied for the reasons statedabove.

Furthermore, if the officer recommendation is to approve the application, then I intend on referringthe application in to be considered by a committee of councillors so that democratic oversight canbe given on the decision.

Mr Dave Whittaker 96 CASSELL RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I do not live in Horfield but I work nearby on the Gloucester Road.

I fully support the application. This building in its semi derelict state looks terrible.

I understand the arguments made by people who are against a national chain taking residence onthe largely independent Gloucester Rd but it is hard to imagine a smaller indepedent companywho could afford to take on such a project.

It is worth noting that Wetherspoons support independent, local breweries in a way that most pubcompanies do not.

There are already a number of outlets selling food and alcohol but I think having a more affordableoption would benefit the local community. I don't think we should automatically assume it willattract antisocial behaviour; I have seen no such issues in my local Wetherspoons establishmentin Fishponds.

I accept it would require careful Policing on match days, but this is something that is achievablee.g. with restricted opening hours etc.

Mr Dave Whittaker 96 CASSELL RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Please note: the previous comment I left was supposed to show I support theapplication, not object but I don't know how to remove it.

Mr COLIN STEPHENS 210 FILTON AVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The eyesore is progressively worse and it would be nice to have it removed. As far asmy experience is concerned Weatherspoon's always run a safe and pleasant public house. Whoelse at this point in time, can take on this derelict building site. At the moment coffee shops andcafes far out way public houses in Gloucester Road.

Mrs Louise Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This establishment will be right at the back of our garden! I do not want the noise orcooking pollution right on my doorstep.

I have a stressful job and my only relaxation is sitting in my back garden for peace and quiet. Thiswill not be the case much longer if planning for this establishment goes ahead.

I am worried about potential rowdy behaviour that may arise from cheap alcohol.

Mr Timothy Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

yet again it seems weatherspoons is trying to get permission to have cheap drinks ongloucester rd,i believe this is the fourth time,and i still strongly disagree that i need or want anotherpub in such close proximity to other public houses. known for cheap beer and cheap food thesmell and noise of both will back on to my garden.

the independant nature of gloucester rd is what makes it different and a big chain likeweatherspoons will irreversibly change that.

how many more times do i/we have to object to this proposal?i really hope we are being listened toby the case officer.

Mrs geraldine Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

i object the smell of cooking and the noise of a roof terrace .i feel theres enough bars and pubs on gloucester road and we dont need anymore.cheap alcohol close to a football ground will undoubtably mean rowdy behaviour on a saturday orany home match.please keep gloucester rd as independent as possible.

Mr David Brooks 87 BISHOP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoons are popular in other parts of Bristol, so why should it be different on theGloucester Road. It would be better to use the derelict space where it is planned for, than have theeyesore that we have at the moment. Wetherspoons offers good food, good value & family friendlyenvironment with no loud music.

Miss Antonia Kamara 150 BRYNLAND AVENUE 21 ARLEY HILL BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live in Brynland Avenue and my property abuts the site mentioned. Our gardens,kitchens and back bedrooms would all be disturbed by activity and noise from a change of use to aPublic House. Every time there was good weather, time we can currently enjoy our gardens andopen windows, there would be disturbance from such a development which would destroy ourquality of life.

Mrs Beryl Horne  75 DOWNMAN ROAD LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Will be good for the area

Mr Tony Myers 27 FULTON GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It would be wonderful to see this go through.The site has been an eyesore for as long as I can remember, and it would ( in my opinion ) bebeneficial to the area, to have a business like Wetherspoons there.Tony Myers.

Mrs Amy Jones 10 BEECH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am raising an objection to the proposal to turn the retail unit into a public house(17/06228/F) because the creation of a roof terrace and a drinking area at the front of theestablishment will create noise and a large number of people drinking outside in a family-friendlyarea which is already well served by pubs and bars. I understand the application is for aWetherspoons which is comparable in price to The Anchor only a few doors down.

Mrs Louise Spencer 135 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This part of the Gloucester Road is well serviced with pubs and does not need anotherone - the existing pubs and cafes are plenty. I have real concerns about an establishment sellingcheap booze (see my last email response to the previous application) from early in the morningright next to a bookies which, as we know attracts often vulnerable people and another pub willfacilitate the 'gateway' effect; potentially reducing inhibitions and changing behaviour. Local shopsare already fed up with anti-social behaviour related to alcohol use (vomiting, violence) in the areaand it would be irresponsible to allow this to develop by offering more opportunity for people todrink alcohol.There is also the issue of football days; already this part of the Gloucester Road canfeel like a no-go area for my young family due to the pre-match drinking and we do not needanother opportunity for people to drink before a match (the existing landlords work very hard toensure problems do not arise but it still feels like a potentially unsafe area on match days). Whatthis area does need is housing, and a proper development of the industrial units across this areato ensure small and medium businesses are supported to start up and establish, bringing work intothe area. This is a fragile area of the Gloucester Road and another pub will absolutely not help insupporting a community-based infrastructure that could help establish a business and residentialcommunity.

Mrs Aurona Brooks 87 BISHOP ROAD, BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Can't wait for the Gloucester Road to have a Wetherspoons. Food is good & excellentvalue for money. No loud music.

Mrs C Osborne 25 MANOR ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am a local resident and am writing to object to this further planning application fromWetherspoons.I can see from looking at the planning portal that many local residents have written in to object,clearly indicating that the local community is obviously concerned about the impact of aWetherspoons outlet on the local traders and residents here.As previously stated by myself and others in previous comments submitted, I am extremelyconcerned about this application for a large drinking establishment on the Gloucester Road. Thereare many other pubs and café bars on the Gloucester Road but nothing on this scale. TheGloucester Road was designated as a Cumulative Impact Zone in August 2010 acting on thepolices request in order that all new licensing applications should be considered in the full light ofthe character of the area and the well-being of the local residents. Bishopston/lower Horfield isprimarily a residential area comprising largely family houses. The proposed drinking hours for thisestablishment are completely incompatible with normal family life. Additionally Bishopston/lowerHorfield is already under increasing pressure from late night drinking and therefore the associatednoise, nuisance, litter, damage to property and anti-social behaviour that this is likely to bring is inmy opinion the last thing that this area needs.Bishopston/lower Horfield is already a 'leisure destination' with many pubs, restaurants and cafes.Unfortunately we seem to be experiencing an increasing number of 'change of use' applicationsfrom retail to restaurant/bar type premises and we really don't need any more as we do not want itto become a city-wide drinking venue like the Whiteladies Road (for example) with all its attendantproblems.Gloucester Road is a well known street of largely independent shops and businesses and thegranting of such an application from a big chain such as Wetherspoons is simply not compatible

with this area and would no doubt significantly affect nearby long standing businesses who are thehallmark of the Gloucester Road and harm the ambiance of Bishopston/lower Horfield and thequality of life of nearby residents.

Additionally the use of a 'pavement cafe' to the front as an outdoor dining/drinking/smoking area isreally in my mind a totally unnecessary addition especially as I think this will cause a risk for manyreasons to the general public passing by, contractors, Police as well as customers and staff.Apart from anything else there surely isn't the room on the pavement on this stretch of GloucesterRoad (unlike say The Anchor Pub which is just a short distance from this address which is set rightback from the pavement and makes use of the frontage there without spilling out and generally notaffecting the general public and passers by and a few other shops/businesses who do havespecific frontage to their premises).

The importance of this application to the local community cannot be over stressed and I wouldstrongly recommend that the decision is taken by the committee (rather than under delegatedpowers) and ask once again that the application be refused.

Mr Neil Greenwood 385 GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

It would be so sad to see the demise of one of Bristol's many unique attributes. Nowhere has a street of independent traders quite like Gloucester Road. Its is something we shouldbe very proud of and not let go of lightly.Wetherspoons are a good company and work well in the right area, but Gloucester Road wouldreally suffer if it were allowed to open. Small cafes would defiantly struggle along with all the othervaried licenced premises. Their attitude to responsible drinking leaves a lot to be desired and itdoesnt need to be encouraged in the area. We have plenty of venues offering cheap food anddrinks so they wouldn't be adding anything new.The building is in desperate need of some TLC but hopefully some thing that would enhance thearea and community spirit.

Mr Adrian Daddow 7 NEVIL ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Hi, I am in favour of this even though there will be objections. The public houses in thisarea are fine but very expensive and the food in some of them (Royal Oak) is iffy to say the least! Iseriously look forward to a Wetherspoons mixed grill and hope this goes ahead.

Mr Richard Castor Jeffery 156 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live and work at 156 Brynland Avenue, with a garden that sits approximately 80m fromthe proposed site.

I object to the formation of a roof terrace, due to the noise and the affect this will have on ourresidential amenity, particularly in the evenings, when the ambient noise is low and sound madeon the roof-terrace will travel further.

The noise impact assessment already shows that at weekends and peak times, the use of thisterrace will affect our gardens, and houses in good weather when we will have our doors andwindows open into the night. Brynland Avenue has a large number of young families, who arelikely to be in bed well before 11pm and are likely to be kept awake by noise from the roof-terracewhen in use.

I challenge the assertion that the acoustic fence will mitigate this nuisance.

I also challenge the statement that the noise impact will be less in the gardens than measured,due to our gardens being closer to traffic noise on Brynland Avenue. Brynland Avenue is a quietresidential street, with only a small amount of traffic, and very little in the evenings.

I also note that, during football season, it is likely that the 'bank holiday' scenario will occur farmore frequently than stated, due to the large number of football supporters who will inevitably usethe roof terrace on a match day.

We are already affected by noise from the beer gardens to the Royal Oak and The Anchor publichouses, also in close proximity to the proposal, and object on the basis of this new roof terracedamaging our residential amenity.

Thank you.

Richard Castor Jeffery

Mr John Payne 53 ZETLAND ROAD, BRISTOL BS6 7AJ  

Bristol Civic Society considers that the reuse of this building would be a planning gain.The Society is concerned, however, that neighbouring residents could be adversely affected bynoise, particularly from the roof garden, and also unpleasant fumes from the cooking processes.We urge the Council to be satisfied that these concerns are overcome before permission isgranted.

Mr Innes McLean 160 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Object:

Impact to local residents from noise, in particular at weekends and in evenings.

Currently many such establishments in the immediate locality (not serving any local need).

The congregation of large numbers of drinkers during football matches at the memorial stadium isalready an issue.

Mr Mark Hepden 38 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Opposed to change of purpose and licensing hours - we don't need a revolting chainpub on our independent beloved Gloucester Road.

This is presidential section of Gloucester Road - concerned with noise and disruption caused byopening hours. Weatherspoon discount their alcohol leading to antisocial behavior.

Mr Tim Prior 30 THORNLEIGH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

At the risk of repeating myself, the latest submission for this scheme differs little fromprevious iterations, and contains conflicting opening hours information (see below).

Whilst welcoming suggestions to bring 349 Gloucester Rd back into use to serve the BishopstonCommunity, as a local resident of over 25 years, I feel that once again I have to object to theplanning application as currently submitted (the fourth (?) iteration after two applicant withdrawals!)for the following reasons:

1) Unacceptable opening hours, which are not in keeping with other similar licensed premises onthe Gloucester Rd. Not only does this engender an unfair competitive advantage in the short term,it sets a precedent for other 'extended hours' applications in the future. Wetherspoons state thatthe opening hours are the same across the board nationally. This is telling, as it shows that, farfrom considering the business to be 'local' in character (something that they make great play of inthe application documentation), they apply a lazy 'one size fits all' approach, and are eitherunwilling, or incapable, of carrying out their own detailed local impact assessment, whereby theymight be able to explain why they are able to come to a different conclusion to that of the BCC onall day drinking late opening in this location, with all the attendant law and order issues that thatentails. The location is in a very sensitive area, with a large residential population either side of theGloucester Rd, cricket and football grounds very close by, and an expanding student population.The volume and content of comments submitted by local residents objecting (at the fourth time ofasking!) to this application should leave the council under no doubt as to the strength of feelingthat exists. It is we, the local residents, who in the end have to pay for the increased clean upcosts, as well as the occasional police presence when things get out of hand, or when large

groups assemble (for example last year I counted 5 police riot vans, 10 mounted police horses,and thirty plus police officers yesterday, required to shepherd some Swansea City fans drinking onthe Blue Anchor on their way to a friendly at the Memorial Stadium further up the Gloucester Rd -and this was in the early afternoon! It is inconceivable to imagine that a very large, low costdrinking venue not thirty metres up the road will not see its fair share of drink related aggravation.As stated above the application sits in a shopping area and a dense residential area with severalschools close by, and as such there are many families present (especially at weekends/bankholidays), as well as (often unaccompanied) school children throughout the week. I wince when Isee concerned parents having to negotiate themselves and their children through some of thedrink related incidents (day time and evening!) I have seen on the Gloucester Rd (especially morerecently due to the area becoming more popular as a drinking destination).

I would also point out that the opening hours in the Noise Impact Assessment (6/4/18) are at oddswith those given within the pavement cafe statement (6/4/18). The former states 0700-0030 Sun-Thurs and 0700-0130 Fri-Sat, whilst the latter states 0800-1200 Sun-Thurs and 0800-0100 Fri-Sat.Which is it, and inn any case why were no opening hours submitted in the latest Applicationdocument??

In relation to the inclusion of a roof terrace and outside 'pavement' terrace, note that The BostonTea Party (100 yards down the Gloucester Rd with a (much smaller) outside terraced area)recently submitted an application to serve alcohol in the evening, and this was rejected bycouncillors, who cited the following reasons for the rejection: .- they believed that public nuisancewould be undermined if granted - they gave great weight to residents' concerns regarding noisenuisance and looked to see if these could be overcome with conditions on the licence but foundthat these concerns could not be assuaged through conditions - a 23:00 hours finish would affectthe sleep of the particular demographic within the immediate vicinity - they felt that alcohol withoutfood would materially change the nature of the premises and would lead to the licensing objectivesbeing undermined.

In their Design Statement Wetherspoons are not even able to give a time when the roof terracewill be closed, only that they are willing to 'negotiate' door closure (they have stated that theywould like it to be open for the full opening hours!). Thus, never mind the 2300H finish that wasrejected above, the Wetherspoons outside terrace could in theory be open until the early hoursevery day of the week!

2) Change of Use of building (previously a retail unit). What evidence can BCC give that theintended use as a licenced premise serving food materially enhances the surrounding area, whichalready has a very large number of units offering the same service? How does the applicationaddress the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) Regulations given that the application sits in such anarea? To quote from the regulations, the CIA exists to: " create a rebuttable assumption thatapplications for new premises licences or material variations will normally be refused .... unless itcan be demonstrated by the applicant that the operation of the premises in question will not add to

the cumulative impact already being experienced in the area."

3) Noise Impact of garden area on surrounding residential properties. In a previous applicationdocument I commented that although 'the Report figures appear to satisfy WHO noiserecommendations, closer inspection of the latter reveals inconsistencies in the values quoted inthe Spectrum report, with maximum noise disturbance levels sometimes used, rather than theWHO 'range of values'. As anyone knows who has been awoken, or otherwise disturbed, by loudvoices and shouting, it only has to happen a couple of times (and, as is the nature of a beergarden, in unpredictable cycles which can add to the distressing effect) to have a negative effect.Average noise levels look well and good in a report, but do not address the 'peak' noisedisturbance issue adequately.

As far as I can see, nothing material has been submitted to adequately address the noiseconcerns above.

In conclusion, and for all the reasons stated above, I urge BCC to reject this ill thought out andclearly unwanted application.

Mr Alan Bill 6 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Once again we strongly object to these proposals by Wetherspoons to create anotherlarge scale drinking and eating establishment on Gloucester Road where late night drinking andsubsequent rowdy behaviour is already a nuisance to us and is increasing all the time.There are already two public houses within 200 metres of this site, the Anchor and the Royal Oak,together with numerous other eating and drinking opportunities. This area of Bishopston/Horfield isa neighbourhood of largely family housing and is not a suitable location, nor is there any need, foryet another large eating, drinking and music venue in the area.We are also very concerned about the proposed licensing hours which can only result in anincrease in drunken shouting, litter, vomit and general anti-social behaviour and noise in thesurrounding area late at night and into the early hours of the morning. The proposal for outsideterraces at the front and back of the establishment will only serve to exacerbate this problemespecially in the summer months.Parking is already a huge problem in this area where there is already insufficient space for us asresidents and a new public house will only attract more people and more vehicles to thesurrounding roads preventing residents from parking anywhere near their houses and leading toeven more disturbance by vehicles manoeuvring late at night.We again recommend refusal of this application and will object to any further application made forthese premises to be developed specifically as an eating and drinking venue. We live about 100metres from this site and will be particularly affected by this development and the subsequentnoise problem.

Mr Mark Evans 33 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a local resident I have significant concerns over this application.

- it will adversely affect local businesses in the local area, particularly licenced leisure premises.

- it is not in keeping with the proudly independent nature of the Gloucester Road.

- following 'market research' undertaken by Wetherspoons it is an obvious attempt to capture'away' supporters trade on match days. It is plain to see that this will attract crowds of undesirableand intoxicated people which will clash with Rovers supporters and place when more strain on thealready high police presence on match days.

- the proposed outdoor area is likely to become a congregation area on sunny evenings which willbe intimidating for passers by, especially those with young families.

- as a local resident I can vouch for the fact that there are more than enough pubs in the local areato satisfy all tastes, budgets and demand.

Please do not let this happen and listen to local residents and business owners!

Unknown   OBJECT

Unknown   OBJECT

Mr Michael Beard 146 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the approval of an application to build a Wetherspoons pub at thissite.

Firstly, the approval of this application would cause excessive noise and disruption to the residentsof Brynland Avenue and directly affect the many bedrooms which are adjacent to the site.

Secondly, there is no reason for more pubs in the area. Six pubs are located within half a mile ofthis site and two within a few hundred feet. Another pub would only increase the antisocialbehaviour in a family residential area.

Lastly, I would ask the planning department to consider the government's strategy to cut bingedrinking and alcohol-fuelled violence (1). It identified that local authorities should control thedensity of licensed premises, including making the impact on health a consideration for this.

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-strategy

Mrs Linda Beard 26 HARTLEBURY WAY CHARLTON KINGS CHELTENHAM   OBJECT

I am a frequent visitor to Bishopton, with family living in adjacent streets to thisdevelopment. As a family, we often walk along this section of Gloucester Road and the numerouspubs (often with inebriated individuals congregating outside) already makes it uncomfortable forthose with young children. I can see no reason why in a family residential area a further publichouse should be added - it will only exacerbate the problem. The planning department mustconsider the needs of families in assessing this decision.

Mr Paul Stacey 162 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This building clearly needs investment. However the installation of a roof terrace wouldbe unacceptable to neighbors. This property is little more than 50m away from several properties,including ours. The external noise generated from a large pub with a n elevate roof terrace wouldbe very disturbing - especially to our young children who sleep in the rear of our house. I have noobjection to a pub in principle - but every objection to a large beer garden and especially elevatedroof garden from where sounds will travel easily.

Mr William Woodman 71 RADNOR ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Yet again Wetherspoons are trying to get approval to convert these premises into a barand the same objections apply as to their previous applications. When are they going to give upand admit defeat. Gloucester Road is a strongly independent trading area and I believe it is in ourinterests to keep it this way. We already have enough bars and pubs in the area and do not needanother one to add to the noise, litter and general antisocial behaviour this development wouldbring.

Unknown   OBJECT

Mr Mike Wilson 387 FILTON AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think this will make a very good addition to the Gloucester road. In all theWeatherspoon pubs I have been in no trouble has ever occurred.thanksMike

Mr Phillip Ankers 51 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to object to this application on the grounds of conservation (the GloucesterRoad was recently designated as Bristol City's Independent Quarter which the introduction ofWeatherspoons pub goes against, dent the opportunity for the premises to be developed foroccupation by local, independent businesses) as well as echoing other objections due to theincreased antisocial behaviour on match days and evenings that results in a drain on the Council'sresources when they have to clear up the broken glass, vomit and general rubbish around thepremises. I understand that previous applications by Weatherspoons have either been refused orwithdrawn. The reasons for those refusals / withdrawals still stand and this latest application addsno amenity or benefit from previous iterations and should therefore be refused.

Dr Ailsa Peron 4 BRENT ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a local resident to the Gloucester Road area and specifically to the locale of theproposed development, I would like to object to the proposed change of use of 349 GloucesterRoad to a public house. First, I object on the grounds of concerns over increased noise and anti-social behaviour, particularly relating to football matches. Currently we have a few public houses inarea in question, but they are sufficiently distributed such that match day visitors are spreadacross a wider geographical area and therefore cause less overal disturbance. Similarly, on non-match days, restricting the density of public houses in that area helps to manage noise anddisruption.

Second, I object on the grounds of conservation, with regard to the nature of Gloucester Road. It isan area which strongly promotes independent shops and restaurants, and I don't feel that a chain-brand public house such as Wetherspoons is consistent with this environment and ethos.

Mr Neil Pirie 53 FALMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This proposal seems sensitively planned with no street impact.

Mrs Clare Martin 26 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

As per my comments on the previous planning attempt I totally object to this buildingbeing used as another Pub especially a Wetherspoons.There are already a large number of pubs/cafes/restaurants that cater adequately to theneighbourhood. Wetherspoons promotes binge drinking and subsequent anti social behaviour.There is likely to be an increase in vomit on the pavement and this is a young familyneighbourhood. There are young children in this neighbourhood and we do not support the factthat we would have a large chain pub with bouncers on the door over the weekend when we like tostroll down the high street.It if was a smaller chain or an independent business we would support this change. But we do notlike the atmosphere, approach or promotions of this particular chain. It should remain in areascentral to the City where it would have less of an impact and change to the current environment.

Mr Sam Lusardi 128 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this proposal to turn 349 Gloucester Road into a Wetherspoons Pub. Thestretch of road on the East side of Gloucester Road from Neville Road to Ashley Down Roadalready has three pubs on it, the Anchor, the Royal Oak and the Drapers. There's absolutely noneed to have another, the community is very well served not just on this stretch of road but byother local pubs of which there are many.

I've read the noise reports and the seen the associated floor plans. For those of us who havehouses backing onto Glos Rd we are already subject to noise from the beer garden and terrace ofthe Anchor, as well in my case of severe noise from the Co-op, with regular unloading of produceand the constant whirr of a refridgeration unit. Additional noise from potential patrons of anestablishment selling low price alcohol, especially on sunnier days when residents are likely towant to be in gardens, is the key reason for my opposition.

Mr Bryn Goodhead 57 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The building needs rejuvenating, having been an eyesore for a long time. This iterationof the application has attempted to mitigate previously voice concerns. Whilst people haveconcerns regarding the place becoming full of football supporters, the majority of the time it will notbe full of them, because the majority of the time there are not football matches. As it is facing ontoa major arterial road, I would imagine that the noise from the establishment would be lost in thenoise that is already generated by the road and existing businesses.

Mr Graham Iwi 142 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I also object to this proposal to turn 349 Gloucester Road into a Wetherspoons Pub.The stretch of road on the East side of Gloucester Road from Neville Road to Ashley Down Roadalready has three pubs on it and a fourth one larger will noticeably change the character of thearea, away from quieter retail activities. There are already a huge number of pubs and cafés in thearea.

I've read the noise reports and seen the floor plans and I am particularly concerned with theproposed beer garden at the back - as my house backs onto Gloucester Road. The fencingaround the Beer Garden will not in my view shelter the noise impact substantially. In my house,there is already considerable noise from the Co-op, due to deliveries and the constant noise of therefridgeration units. Additional noise from customers in a crowded Wetherspoon's pub gardenwould make it unpleasant using our back gardens in nicer weather, especially for residents withchildren. Wetherspoons pubs are often associated with rowdy behaviour and I fear that onSaturday evenings and match-days, the pavement area at the front of the pub could be particularlyunpleasant for local residents to walk past.

Mrs Pegah Esmaili 7 DONGOLA AVE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The Gloucester Road is famous for being the largest road of independent businesses inEurope. Yes, there are empty units but that's a reflection of the global economy, not the currentoffering.

So let's not get over-excited and grant a national chain that is not in keeping with this areapermission to contaminate one of the loveliest areas of Bristol, highly populated by families withyoung children, that will no doubt cause a negative impact on the family-owned and run licencedbusinesses within spitting distance.

As a local business owner (family owned and run) I am already having to clear vomit, emptybottles, broken glass and such from my property and outside my business so that my visitors canenter safely, practically on a daily basis.

There is absolutely no need for another pub. Wetherspoons will canabalise their local independentcompetition and affect livelihoods.

There are far better uses for the building if only Wetherspoon's would sell it. And I know for a factthey won't.

So, planning reasons why you should reject this: noise pollution, anti-social behaviour blah blahblah.

Please can we put an end to this once and for all or do we need to continue this farce every 2

years when they feel like having another stab at it?

Dr Meg Rowlands 9C ASHLEY DOWN ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this building being turned into a weatherspoons pub. We have enough largepubs in the area and I don't think that adding another one is either necessary. Furthermore I amconcerned about the clientele it would attract, particularly on football match days.

I also feel the Gloucester Road is a thriving place for small independent businesses to flourish andI don't feel that a weatherspoons is in keeping with this ethos.

Mr Paul Barnett 5, STRATHMORE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

On the whole I think this is a good application but I oppose the outside terrace at streetlevel. Mainly due to concerns of a return to the Queen Vic style - take your life in your hands walkpast hundreds / thousands of boozed up football supporters.