Application Details

Reference 18/00346/H
Address 11 Beloe Road Bristol BS7 8RB  
Street View
Proposal Double storey side extension.
Validated 02-02-18
Type Full Planning (Householders)
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 27-02-18
Determination Deadline 30-03-18
Decision REFUSED
Decision Issued 29-03-18
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 10    Total: 10
No. of Page Views 65

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 19-03-18

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

As per our comments on the earlier application 17/04018/H, we would not be concernedwith a fist floor extension above the existing single width garage, but would not support a doublewidth extension (almost the same width as the earlier proposed additional 2 bed house) which wefeel would extend the terrace too far and would look ungainly and out of character.We recommend refusal.

As per our comments on the earlier application 17/04018/H, we would not be concernedwith a fist floor extension above the existing single width garage, but would not support a doublewidth extension (almost the same width as the earlier proposed additional 2 bed house) which wefeel would extend the terrace too far and would look ungainly and out of character.We recommend refusal.

Unknown   OBJECT

Unknown   OBJECT

Dr Darren and Bryony Roberts and Enright    OBJECT

We object to the proposed plans as they are very similar to the previous planssubmitted and would impact us in the same way.

We live opposite the proposed site. Currently our view from the front of our property looks upBeloe road towards Maple Road with a view towards Horfield common. We only recently movedinto our house and the openness of the road was a big draw about the street when deciding whereto live. Given the choice, we would object to the additional height and extending outwards becauseit would impact on the view from our house and would make us feel overlooked. Another reasonfor liking the house when we bought it was the light we get at the front of the house in theevenings. With an extension built opposite, this would be affected.

We also have concerns about reduction in visibility on the bend in Beloe Road; this may increasethe chance of accidents and reduce road safety.

In principle we do not object to developments in the area, it is primarily that it would negativelyimpact a view from the front of our house that we currently like and enjoy.

Dr Darren and Bryony Roberts and Enright    OBJECT

We object to the proposed plans as they are very similar to the previous planssubmitted and would impact us in the same way.

We live opposite the proposed site. Currently our view from the front of our property looks upBeloe road towards Maple Road with a view towards Horfield common. We only recently movedinto our house and the openness of the road was a big draw about the street when deciding whereto live. Given the choice, we would object to the additional height and extending outwards becauseit would impact on the view from our house and would make us feel overlooked. Another reasonfor liking the house when we bought it was the light we get at the front of the house in theevenings. With an extension built opposite, this would be affected.

We also have concerns about reduction in visibility on the bend in Beloe Road; this may increasethe chance of accidents and reduce road safety.

In principle we do not object to developments in the area, it is primarily that it would negativelyimpact a view from the front of our house that we currently like and enjoy.

Miss Mary Lake 6 BELOE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I objected to the previous application, which was for a single storey extension over theexisting garage and for a 2-storey single dwelling house adjoining. My objection was to theconstruction of the single dwelling house, which extended the terrace too far.

I object to the present application, because an extension over a new double garage will extend theproperty nearly as far as it would have extended with the aforementioned single dwelling house.

A double extension will extend the terrace too far and will be too large in scale. It will have a muchgreater effect because at this corner Beloe Road bends back on itself, so what happens here interms of the design of the terrace is crucial.

It was noted in the Case Officer's report for the previous application that construction of the newhouse would harm the outlook of neighbouring properties, specifically numbers 8 and 10 BeloeRoad. The double extension now proposed will still harm the outlook of these properties.

The Case Officer's report stated that if considered as a single application, the proposed first floorextension above the existing garage would be acceptable. I would not object to a first floorextension above the existing garage. This would provide an acceptable end to the terrace.

Ms Ruth Chadney 10 BELOE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Re Planning Application No.18/00346/H

This application is to build a double storey side extension to No. 11 Beloe Road, BS7. Theprevious proposal was to construct an additional house which would have been built up to theboundary line on the 90 degree corner of Beloe Road. This application, to extend the existinghouse, shows a similar footprint, taking the extension to almost the same point. Therefore myobjections regarding Highway Safety and Loss of Light and Overshadowing remain the same.Also, it should be noted that the extension of this end of terrace is out of keeping with the housesnearby.

Safety and highway issues

It is proposed that the side extension be build close to the boundary line which means the heightsof the new build will block visibility of vehicles particularly high-sided coming down the road andthose turning the 90 degree corner going up the road. This, in addition to cars exiting from thenewly build Beloe Mews onto the same space of road, creates a dangerous corner. It has beenobserved that some vehicles entering and exiting Beloe Mews do so at an unsafe speed.

Loss of Light and Overshadowing

At present, in Winter light shines down the road as the sun is setting. This will now be blocked forhouses 10 and 12 (partially), if the proposed build goes ahead. This loss of light andovershadowing will have a major detrimental effect on the residents' quality of life compared tobefore.

Proposed Side Extension Plans - Anomalies

On studying the drawings, it has been noted that there is no family bathroom planned for the forfirst floor, just an en-suite bathroom connected to bedroom 1. Does this mean that occupants ofbedrooms 2, 3 and 4 on the first floor must use the small bathroom downstairs? Also, how wouldanyone access any of the bedrooms on the first floor as there appears to be no staircase planned?

Miss Mary Lake 6 BELOE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I objected to the previous application, which was for a single storey extension over theexisting garage and for a 2-storey single dwelling house adjoining. My objection was to theconstruction of the single dwelling house, which extended the terrace too far.

I object to the present application, because an extension over a new double garage will extend theproperty nearly as far as it would have extended with the aforementioned single dwelling house.

A double extension will extend the terrace too far and will be too large in scale. It will have a muchgreater effect because at this corner Beloe Road bends back on itself, so what happens here interms of the design of the terrace is crucial.

It was noted in the Case Officer's report for the previous application that construction of the newhouse would harm the outlook of neighbouring properties, specifically numbers 8 and 10 BeloeRoad. The double extension now proposed will still harm the outlook of these properties.

The Case Officer's report stated that if considered as a single application, the proposed first floorextension above the existing garage would be acceptable. I would not object to a first floorextension above the existing garage. This would provide an acceptable end to the terrace.

Ms Ruth Chadney 10 BELOE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Re Planning Application No.18/00346/H

This application is to build a double storey side extension to No. 11 Beloe Road, BS7. Theprevious proposal was to construct an additional house which would have been built up to theboundary line on the 90 degree corner of Beloe Road. This application, to extend the existinghouse, shows a similar footprint, taking the extension to almost the same point. Therefore myobjections regarding Highway Safety and Loss of Light and Overshadowing remain the same.Also, it should be noted that the extension of this end of terrace is out of keeping with the housesnearby.

Safety and highway issues

It is proposed that the side extension be build close to the boundary line which means the heightsof the new build will block visibility of vehicles particularly high-sided coming down the road andthose turning the 90 degree corner going up the road. This, in addition to cars exiting from thenewly build Beloe Mews onto the same space of road, creates a dangerous corner. It has beenobserved that some vehicles entering and exiting Beloe Mews do so at an unsafe speed.

Loss of Light and Overshadowing

At present, in Winter light shines down the road as the sun is setting. This will now be blocked forhouses 10 and 12 (partially), if the proposed build goes ahead. This loss of light andovershadowing will have a major detrimental effect on the residents' quality of life compared tobefore.

Proposed Side Extension Plans - Anomalies

On studying the drawings, it has been noted that there is no family bathroom planned for the forfirst floor, just an en-suite bathroom connected to bedroom 1. Does this mean that occupants ofbedrooms 2, 3 and 4 on the first floor must use the small bathroom downstairs? Also, how wouldanyone access any of the bedrooms on the first floor as there appears to be no staircase planned?