Application Details

Reference 18/04526/F
Address Land To Rear Of 72 Church Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8SE  
Street View
Proposal Proposed erection of two storey 2no. bed single dwelling house.
Validated 28-08-18
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 28-09-18
Standard Consultation Expiry 25-09-18
Determination Deadline 23-10-18
Decision REFUSED
Decision Issued 07-11-18
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 19    Total: 19
No. of Page Views 180
TBS articles

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 12-10-18

This is a welcome refusal of an oversized, boxy, unsightly 2 storey dwelling in a rear garden. The proposal was also partly blocking access to lane by other residents with their cars. We considered this application to be poorly designed and out of character with its surroundings.

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

We would recommend refusal of this application as it is over sized, too tall and lumpenin its design. Furthermore, it is out of character with its surroundings and would make the safemanoeuvring of vehicles in the rear lane both difficult and dangerous.

Mrs Chris Miller 5 MILTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I'm writing to ask why this application is still pending consideration as its past thedeadline day. When might we expect a decision?Thankschris

Ms Allison Tillcock 78 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear sir/madam,

We are writing to strongly object to the proposal 18/4526/F.We feel that it should be rejected on the same grounds as previous, similar, objections (e.g.04/05055/F/N & 04/00995/P/N) which were refused, as the situation for residents whose houseswill be overshadowed by the imposing property and affected by the building, have not changed.1) The proposed building will be out of scale, out of character and not compatible with the site,surrounding buildings (on Church Road and Milton Road) and the gardens adjoining the site.2) The building will harm the residential amenities for those who live in Church Road (numbers 76-68) because of the size, height and proximity to their gardens. The effect from overshadowing willbe more damaging than the plans show, as the times selected by the proposer do not showovershadowing at its worst. The building will be overbearing and oppressive.3) The site is in an area that is green and spacious and the building will ruin the quality of the area.4) The space is used to park three cars and with the loss of this site, parking in the area willworsen.

Yours sincerely

Allison Tillcock & Steve Wakley

Mrs Jacqueline Davis 1 MILTON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I wish to object this application for the following reasons.

First of all, parking is very limited in the area already. As the majority of residents living on MiltonRoad have young children, it can be extremely difficult to get children along with their belongingssafely back into the house when having to park far away. People are already forced to park on thecurb which can make manoeuvring a pram very difficult and this development would no doubtworsen this situation.

The lane which the development proposes to narrow is frequently used for cars and largervehicles to turn. Cars having to reverse back down the road is likely to cause accidents and againposes more of a threat when young children are playing out in the road. Furthermore access to thelane to larger emergency vehicles would be restricted.

I also feel that the design for the development is not in keeping with the area and is imposing andwould not blend in with the other houses. it would also block light to the houses opposite.

I hope that you will carefully consider the many concerns of the residents and will decide to rejectthis planning application which would undoubtedly make an already difficult parking and situationfor all residents and particularly those with young famailes.

Ms Sharn Thomas 53, CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Parking already a problem..turning area for cars.

Mrs Claire Sapsford 2 MILTON ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

Ref: application no. 18/04526/F

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I object to this proposal for the following 5 reasons:

1. Loss of light and privacy: this is an imposing development. At present, numbers 5 & 6 MiltonRoad have no other houses facing them directly. The proposed dwelling will be directly across thestreet and will place windows in direct line of sight for those houses and others which will backonto it from Church Road.

2.Highway safety: I am concerned of the impact that this development would have upon access foremergency vehicles, particularly to the rear of Church Road, where access is already hamperedby the haphazard parking on both sides of our cul de sac. It is unlikely that a Fire Engine would beable to actually get onto the lane with this new development in place.

3. Traffic / Parking. This development will exacerbate the severe parking shortages on MiltonRoad and surrounding streets, which often result in partially blocked pavements that make itdifficult for me to safely negotiate with a pram and 2 children under 5 years. The proposal suggesta net reduction of one parking space, but given that 3 cars commonly use this site, that is 2 carsrequiring another space before considering the additional cars introduced by the proposed 2 beddwelling. As a cul de sac, Milton Road is already used by people on Church Road as a safer placeto park their cars than their busier through-road, and it is not uncommon to have to park severalstreets away at peak times (evenings and weekends, with Bristol Rovers match days on anentirely different plane of difficulty). Often the parking we see is dangerous. Driveways are

routinely blocked, and a neighbour has had to call police on numerous occasions to move vehiclesso that he can get out to work. Adding a further dwelling to this maelstrom would make an alreadyfrustrating situation even worse.

4. Appearance of development: the design statement contends that this is a 'modest' and'sympathetic' dwelling, yet the drawings and thvisualisations illustrate a domineering, modernstructure, shoehorned into a small area, and of a striking style that is in sharp contrast to the ,1930s terrace on one side and a Victorian terrace on the other. We do not need or want a'bookend' to our Milton Road. The design statement places emphasis that this is a developmentlocated at the rear of church road, but underplays the fact it is also stands at the front of MiltonRoad and will be seen by all 6 houses on our street, all of those that back onto it, those furtherdown Church Road who face up our road and by all those who use the village green. It will notblend in unnoticed at all.

5. Amenities: Changing the purpose of this site and squeezing in yet another dwelling sets adangerous precedent in our area. School places are hotly contested, as are parking spaces andamenities are already overstretched. When we suffered a burst water main a few months ago ittook a week of increasingly desperate and concerned telephone calls to stop the torrent of leakingwater.

In summary, I strongly object to this proposal, as it would place a striking, domineering, out ofcharacter, 2-storey building, at the front and in full view of every house on Milton Road. It wouldalso exacerbate already intolerable parking pressures on this cul de sac, increase accessibilityissues for emergency vehicles, and add to safety concerns for pedestrians and young children.

Mrs Linda Smiles 57 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this development of an extremely small plot into a large, ugly andanachronistic house which would have a hugely detrimental effect on our locality. My neighbourshave all raised some significant points to which I would add the potential danger to users of theScout Hut, located on the corner of Horfield Common accessed directly from the top of MiltonRoad. This Scout Hut is used every night of the week, also for community events at weekendsplus sleepover nights and kit drop offs for camping trips. If this development is permitted there willbe a huge impact on the traffic and safety of Milton Road, potentially endangering children whoattend Beavers, Cubs and Scouts at the hall.In addition this sets a precedent for any resident with a spare few metres of land to impose astructure on the landscape with absolutely no benefit to the community. This will impact on thearea at the expense of the appearance, cohesion of the existing environment and road safety.Construction traffic and building works would have an extremely negative impact on the residentsof Church Road and Milton Road, and these points together with the objections from ourcommunity will show it to be a catastrophic mistake to allow this to happen.

Miss samantha oakes 3 MILTON ROAD, HORFIELD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object.Milton Road is a small cul de sac, with 6 houses, we all have very young families. We have astrong sense of community and our children play outside together, by erecting another house thiswill mean more cars making use of our small road and parking outside our houses.We love where we live and love the fact that our children can play close to their homes insafety,please don't take this away from them.

Mrs Mary Evans 82 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

We object to the proposed erection of a two storey house on the land to the rear ofnumber 72 Church road.

1. This is already an extremely congested and built up area. Adding another house to the end ofMilton Road will mean more cars trying to park on the road.

2. Who will be living in the house in the long term? It will most likely be rented out to eitherstudents or young professionals which means more cars trying to park and access the lane(residents and visitors).

3. Will this set a precedence for building on the lane?

Mrs Chris Miller 5 MILTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear Sir,

I have carefully read through the documentation provided for this proposed development and amlodging this objection as a result. I was alarmed by the amount of inaccurate information providedand am taking this opportunity to try to address these before outlining my personal objections.It should be noted that this development has as much or more impact on Milton Road as it does onthe rear of Church Road. This is not clear from the provided documentation.

24/Aug/18 - Title: Supporting Document.Page 3: "It is also material to note that the site is currently in a visually degraded state, providingno useful purpose to the local community and a sensitively designed redevelopment scheme willcreate a vast visual improvement."Opinion presented as fact. In my opinion the site is not visually degraded. It currently holds aquirky looking brick and wood storage building. The proposed development will vastly reduce theroads visual appeal. The site also provides an extremely useful purpose to the local community byenabling vehicles to turn around at the end of the road.

Page 3: "I contend that the existing site makes no positive contribution to the street scene, orcharacter of the surrounding residential estate. It represents a parcelof previously developed land, which in my opinion, should be reused in an efficient and effectiveway..."As a person who does not use Milton Road multiple times a day the agent's contention that thesite makes no positive contribution to the street is ill informed and incorrect.There has been no previous development on this land except the small storage facility currently onit. Multiple previous planning submissions have been refused [04/05055/F/N & 04/00995/P/N].

It could be reused in an efficient and effective way as per policy BCS20 but this proposal -18/04526/F - is neither of those things. It is overbearing, has ineffective amenity planning and willdegrade the local outlook as per policy DM26.

Page 3: "...the proposed development has been carefully devised to ensure no harm will occur tothe nearby residents."There is potential harm to neighbours from this development. The plans show a Smart car, one ofthe smallest available on the market, being able to access the lane to the West elevation. A fireengine would not be able to fit up that lane if this proposal is approved. That would leave at leastnumbers 72-84 Church Road at significant risk should any of them catch fire. The proposal alsoincreases the risk of flooding by reducing field run-off soak away area and increasing run-off fromthe site. Finally, there is increased risk of damage to our vehicles by vehicles that have to reversedown the road because they cannot turn around. As a small cul-de-sac, Milton Road curvesslightly and is very narrow. We have all seen people get into difficulties when reversing down theroad. Being able to turn around at the top is essential to the thoroughfare.

Page 3: "This is a built up residential area, and whilst the new dwelling will be sited at the rear ofdwelling houses fronting Church Road, it has been designed toensure that no overlooking will result."Inaccurate presentation of fact by omission. This does not take into account the fact that the newbuilding will be sited to the front of the dwelling houses fronting Milton Road and overlooking ontothose houses will result - see South Elevation PL02C PROPSED PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.

Page 4: "A single car parking space is proposed together with cycle storage facilities inaccordance within Policy DM23. These factors mean that all transportation aspects of thedevelopment are appropriately catered for."This development is reducing the amount of parking spaces by two [see incorrect information inapplication form] and will most likely increase the amount of cars needing parking by at least one,all transportation aspects of the development are not appropriately catered for and it may in factcontravene Policy DM23.

Page 4: "This application represents the opportunity to make the best and most efficient use of thesite in accordance with the recently published revised NPPF (2018), and which currently makes nopositive contribution to the character and appearance of the area."This application certainly does not make the best and most efficient use of the site. Current designleaves no space onsite for a SuDS feature which is in contravention of the Sustainable DrainageSystem Strategy for our area - North of NSWI - where the overarching drivers are to limitdischarge to capacity of existing sewer network or existing rate. This is highlighted by the refusalof the application by Wessex Water.Also, as highlighted above, the site does make a positive contribution to the community throughproviding off street parking spaces, not affecting any neighbours' privacy and not presenting athreat to anybody.

Page 4: "Similarly, the profile of the building has been kept low, in keeping with the coach houserationale, so that it will not appear overbearing to adjacent properties."More than doubling the current footprint and height of the existing building is not keeping theprofile low. It will be significantly overbearing for those properties opposite it on Milton Road andthose behind it on Church Road.

24/Aug/18 - Title: Application Form.Section 9. Vehicle Parking.Three cars frequently park on the site so the information on the form is inaccurate. The differencein spaces is -2. In reality the difference is more as the form does not take into account the increasein the number of cars a new residence will almost certainly incur. -3 parking spaces could beconsidered more accurate.

Section 11. Assessment of Flood RiskIt is stated that this development will not increase the flood risk elsewhere. I do not agree with thisassessment. Currently after significant rains, water draining from the field and the lane runs acrossthe pavement and due to its volume, often spills over the drain and runs down the road. Theproposed development will mean most of this water is channelled across the road toward thedriveway of 6 Milton road rather than toward the current drain. Water draining down off the fieldalready runs right across the driveway of 6 Milton Road and adding to this may cause overflowingof the gutter on the side of Milton Road with houses. Certainly a significantly larger volume ofrunoff will be directed down Milton Road rather than soaking away on the site or feeding into thedrain at the top of the road.As stated earlier, the proposal of this application to dispose of surface water into the main sewer isin contravention of the Sustainable Drainage System Strategy for our area and the current designleaves no space for a suitable alternative. It may be that the site itself is unsuitable for any non-permeable development greater than its current footprint.

Section 17. All Types of Development: Non-Residential FloorspaceThe current application states that the proposal does not involve the loss, gain or change of use ofnon-residential floorspace. This is incorrect.There is currently non-residential floorspace on the site and this will be changed to residential.

Section 22. Site VisitThe current application states that the site cannot be seen from a public road, public footpath,bridleway or other public land. This is incorrect.The site is easily viewed from anywhere on Milton Road and the proposed development willdominate any aspect from anywhere on the road. The site is also clearly visible from ChurchRoad, houses 37-55 have a clear view of it and any person walking up Church Road on that sideor crossing Milton Road where it intersects with Church Road can view the site.

The site is currently not visible from most of the village green to the rear as it is behind a hedgerowfrom that aspect, but the current two-storey proposal will rise well above the hedgerow and makethe site visible from all but the exit areas of the village green.

24/Aug/18 - Title: PL20 & PL21 SHADOW 1 & 2We have been provided with pictures that are supposed to show the impact of the shadow thrownby the proposed development compared to the current one.These pictures do not show the shadows at their furthest extent toward the houses on ChurchRoad and therefore hide the true extent of the shadow the proposed development will cast and areinaccurate for use in making a decision based on this factor.1. The second time - 3PM - used does not give an accurate idea of the furthest extent of theshadow. On June 21, the Summer solstice the sun is nearer to its highest point at 3PM than say6PM when most people are home from work and would like to enjoy their garden in the sunshine.At 6PM on the solstice the shadow extent would be more than double that shown in the providedpictures.2. June 21, the longest day of the year and March 21, half way between the longest and shortestdays are compared. Longer shadows are cast at the times provided between March andDecember.For those in houses 70-74 this will cause a significant loss of daylight in their gardens

24/Aug/18 - Title: PL15 EXISTING AND PROPOSED VIEWSThis document clearly illustrates the problems with parking we experience on Milton Road. Anextra three cars parking on this road will cause stress for all existing residents.

24/Aug/18 - Title: DESIGN STATEMENTPage 7: Design Section "Creating a modern and modest design that reflects the traditional contextof the site, and is also sympathetic to its surrounding neighbours, with all issues of privacy andoverlooking addressed and views retained. Making a positive contribution to the locality."The design is not modest. A single story building could be considered modest for the site.The design does not reflect the traditional context of the site.The design is not sympathetic to its surrounding neighbours.All issues of privacy and overlooking are not addressed.Views are not retained.It does not make a positive contribution to the locality.

Page 7: Form Section "...we have prepared accompanying shadow drawings showing noovershadowing issues."This is incorrect. The shadow drawings do not show the shadows at their furthest extent.

Personal Objections to the Proposed Development

Loss of Light or PrivacyLoss of privacy: The planning documentation says that no overlooking will result from theproposed development but only refers to houses on Church Road. Our house, 5 Milton Road, willbe closer to the building and overlooked by bedroom two and the side windows of the living room.Loss of light: It is clear that the amount of shade cast by the proposed development onto thegardens of 70, 72 & 74 will be more than indicated

Highway SafetyMilton Road is a small cul-de-sac, used by residents, neighbours and frequently by motoriststhinking it is a through-road. Building a house, to the maximum of its boundaries, in the onlyturning space on the street will make turning around either impossible, or only possible if vehiclesreverse onto the driveway of 6 Milton Road. If less vehicles can turn around, more will have toreverse and this is not an easy feat on the thin, curved road. I have witnessed parked carsdamaged by reversing cars before and would expect this to happen more often if most people arereversing down the lane. It is also harder for a person reversing to see if children are crossing theroad [this is made more likely by the fact that reduced parking means we are less likely to beparked in front of our houses]. There are five children under six years old that live on Milton Roadalone. Highway safety is therefore reduced by this proposal.

Traffic and Parking IssuesThree cars regularly park on the site currently. We can expect at least one extra car to park therepost-development. As only one parking space is provided by the proposed development thatleaves at least three extra cars needing to park on Milton Road, more if the new tenants havemultiple cars. That will elevate stress and hassle for not just Milton Road but Church Road,Hughenden Road and Rozel Road to name just three of the streets I already have to park on whenI cannot find a space on Milton Road.The impact to parking by this development cannot be understated by residents. It has beenunderstated in the planning application though. -3 could be considered more accurate than the -1stated.

NoiseIn this neighbourhood a large percentage of new developments are rented to students. There is avery bad record of the impact of student lets on those with young families in the area. Should thisbuilding be rented to students who exhibit typical behaviour then all of us on Milton Road and onthe West side of Church Road from 66 upwards will experience significant personal noise impact.

AmenityAs mentioned above I believe the proposed development will have a significant impact on the localamenities.

1. Emergency. The Fire Service will not be able to get an appliance up the back lane to tackle anyfires to the rear of the houses on Church Road. This could lead to significant spread of any blazeto adjacent properties.2. Flooding. Run-off from the field will be increased through reduced soak-away area andredirected toward the road and the gutter on the residential side of Milton Road. This could havesevere damp consequences for 5 and 6 Milton Road where there is already heavy run-off from thefield.3. Drainage. The plans for dealing with run-off from the roof are in contravention of local policy andif implemented present an increased risk of local flooding in addition to my previous point aboutthe run-off from the field.

Appearance of the DevelopmentThe proposed development will dominate the appearance of Milton Road sitting as it does at theend of the point of view for anyone walking or driving up the road. This will fundamentally changethe character of the area in a way that single story development would not.

Mrs Janie Ankers 51 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

To whom it may concern,I am writing to strongly oppose the erection of this building on this land. I live opposite Milton Roadon Church Rd and we struggle to park on a daily basis in this area. Parking is very tight and I amforced to drive up Milton Rd on a daily basis to check for a space, and more often than not do a 3point turn in the location where this house is proposed for. Losing this space would cause asignifica where it meets Church Rd. We already have people getting stuck there and beeping/shouting on a daily basis. To add to this would be horrendous for all of the residents in the area.

There are continuous snarls and blockages of traffic on the street leading to aggravated drivers.This building will also block views from our house over to the common affecting both the value ofour house and the view from my front bedroom window. We strongly oppose it.

Many thanks,Janie Ankers

Mrs Jane Goddard 66 CHURCH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object strongly to the proposed build at the rear of 72 Church Road for the followingreasons:

It is totally out of keeping with the rest of the houses surrounding it which are Edwardian. It quitefrankly looks awful. The proposed construction is too high and wooden cladding will look tired andshabby very quickly. I do not see it as a positive contribution to the area in any way.

Milton Road is a short cul de sac where cars park along both sides of the road. The lane where theproposed build will be forms a much needed turning point for people to turn their cars around.Without this drivers will have to reverse back down the road which will no doubt cause accidents.

Parking is already an issue in this and the surrounding area. Reducing parking spaces in MiltonRoad will only put more pressure on Church Road, Hughenden Road and Rozel Road where wehave to park when we cannot get a space near the house.

The garage where the proposed build will be is only run down because the proposer has allowed itto become so. It is however preferable by far to what is being proposed.

Mr Greg O'Hagan 76 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

76 Church RoadHorfieldBristolBS7 8SE

Development ManagementCity HallBristol City CouncilPO Box 3176BristolBS3 9FS

23rd September 2018

Application No. : 8/04526/FProposal : Proposed erection of two story 2 no. bed single dwelling houseSite Address : Land to rear of 72 Church Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8SE

Dear Sir,

We are writing to register our strong objection to the referenced planning application.

Whilst different in style and other minor details, related to the general arrangement, we object onthe same grounds as those on which other similar applications (e.g. 04/05055/F/N &04/00995/P/N) were refused, namely:

1. The proposed building would appear out of scale (noting it is bigger than the 04/00995/P/Nproposal), out of character and wholly incompatible with its immediate surroundings by means ofits siting in relation to the adjoining buildings, and its form.2. It would harm the spacious qualities of this part of the street scene, and the relationship of theproperties on Church Road to Horfield Common, to the west of the application site.3. The proposed development would result in an overbearing and oppressive form of developmentby reason of its proximity to the adjoining residential gardens on Church Road, its siting andinevitable bulk, massing, form and height.4. The proposal would be significantly detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers ofnumbers 70 to 76 Church Road.

Of minor note.

The development of this site will worsen the already difficult access and parking situation in MiltonRoad with a nett loss of overall parking spaces.

Yours Sincerely,

Greg O'HaganLesley O'Hagan

Ms Cylla Cole 4 MILTON RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live in Milton Rd, which is a cul de sac with only 6 houses and there is a lot of traffic inand out of the street and it is difficult for the residents of this street to park in the street asneighbouring residents use it also. The proposed development would do the following:1. Increase more cars into a very small street2. Block light to the houses opposite3. Cause a lot of problems to the residents in the lane who park at the back of Church St as theproposed dwelling will be an increased footprint and leave less space for the cars which haveaccess to the rear of their properties.4. A large amount of cars use the proposed development area as a turning space which meansthey do not have to reverse down a very tight street. The development would increase carsreversing out and also impact on the safety of all the children in the 6 houses in the street.

Mr Brian Rae 68 CHURCH ROAD, HORFIELD, BRISTOL BS7 8SE   OBJECT

We would like to object to the proposed development on the land to the rear of 72Church Rd, BS7 8SE.

The proposed development suffers from a number of failings:

1. Out of character - the surrounding houses largely consist of Edwardian homes which contributea traditional feel to the area. This proposed development would stand out for all the wrongreasons, being of a completely unsympathetic, overbearing design. The impact would bedetrimental to both neighbours and to all users of the common area. This is particularly unsuitablegiven the recent recognition of the playing fields as a Village Green, in recognition of the valuethey bring to the community.

2. Overshadowing - the proposed development would significantly overshadow our garden andblock views of the village green from our home. This would destroy the open aspect of the rear ofall the adjacent properties to the detriment of the locale.

3. Highway Safety - Milton Road is a cul de sac, with the top of the road commonly used to turnvehicles around rather than reversing out. This development would limit the space for turning ofvehicles, leading to cars reversing in or out of Milton Rd, which would inevitably lead to moreaccidents. Given the number of children who live and play in the area, this could have tragicconsequences.

4. Parking - the additional pressure on parking in the area created by the additional vehicles andthe loss of parking on the site would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of thearea. During term time, it is often difficult to find a space in the vicinity after 9pm, this would make

it worse.

The proposed development is too high, too overbearing and impacts negatively on both thecharacter and amenity of the area, and should be refused in the same manner as previousapplications for similar development were refused.

Mr clive lloyd 64 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

every few years or change of owner of no 72 puts in a planning application. the parkingin our road is very bad after 5 pm and at weekend, this plot is currently used for parking where willthey park ?.as to the area some land has been claimed from the lane next to the deveopment sitecan they prove this is their land ?the proposed property is not in keeping with the nearby housesand if this is granted how long before others put in for planning permission.at the momentemergency services can get to the rear of church road properties,we are worried about access inthe case of emergency.

Mrs Susan Yates 84CHURH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear sirI would like to raise an objection to the proposed scheme at the back of 72 Church road as itwould compromise the current good vehicle access to my garage at the top of the back lane

The proposed plans indicate that the rear passage between 72 Church road and the proposedscheme will be extended however the proposed extension of the building further projecting into themain back lane acccess is not clarified.In addition this extension to the rear passage, for this building will also compromise the accessfrom Milton lane to the back lane and as such requires clarificationAs such the proposed scheme appears to compromise the current good vehicle lane access fromMilton lane

Your sincerely

Sue Yates84 Church rd

Mr Shiraz Ahmed 74 CHURCH ROAD, HORFIELD, BRISTOL BS7 8SE   OBJECT

Dear Sir Date: 18th September 2018

Re: Planning Application No 18/04526/F

With reference to the above application, we would like to make the following comments andobservations:-

Pluvial flooding

1. This tiny piece of land is situated at the bottom of a field. This field has quite a steep slope andis bordered by a hedgerow. When it rains, water runs off this field, through the hedgerow and ontothis land. At one time, there was a trench by the side of the hedgerow to collect the water andfunnel it onto the pavement on Milton Road and then into the drain. However, recently someonehas filled in this trench and now the water runs straight out of the hedgerow and all over this plotbefore finding its way into the drain. The question is, how can you build on land which is frequentlyengulfed by pluvial flooding. We have asked the advice of two builders, who said the only wayround it, is to build on stilts or piles, which would be quite an extensive undertaking, requiring theservices of a Structural Engineer.

2. Why is this structure straddling the public right of way road, thereby making it necessary tomake a detour road into the hedgerow and destroying many metres of it, in order for vehicles to goup the road? We presume this road and hedgerow is Council property, so the question remains,why is someone proposing to build on Council land?

3. The gardens of the Edwardian terrace behind this plot are so small, that this proposed two

storey structure will loom over the back gardens of the houses and the windows will beoverlooking into people's gardens and invading their privacy and causing perpetual shade. Indeed,the upstairs window of the back wall will look directly down onto No 76 and No 78 gardens,invading their privacy at all times.

4. The space available to locate construction machinery and vehicles is severely limited. This plotis very tiny and there is no spare space available around it. People need to park on Milton Roadand people need to use the right of way to go up to their houses, so it cannot be blocked.

5. This proposed structure is excessively bulky and disproportionate to the situation and thedevelopment's design is such that it will be a visual anachronism to the neighbourhood and stickout unsympathetically amidst the Edwardian houses. To build this enormous structure on this tinypiece of land would be like parking a 10 ton truck in someone's living room. It is bizarre because itwill loom over the whole neighbourhood like an enormous carbuncle.

6. None of the diagrams adequately show how this edifice of two storeys will loom overwhelminglyover the whole space and dominate the neighbourhood. The claim that the site is neglected anduntidy is the fault of the owner who makes little or no attempt to make it pleasant. It would not taketoo much effort to turn it into a clean and tidy space.

7. We feel strongly that this structure, squashed as it would be into a very small enclosed space,would be wholly inappropriate taking into account the extremely small gardens of the houses andwould be overbearing and forbidding in appearance.

Yours faithfully

Mr S Ahmed and Mrs June Ahmed74 Church Road, Horfield, Bristol BS7 8SEE-mail: shirazahmed_2304@hotmail.co.uk

Unknown   OBJECT

3. APPEARANCE AND DESIGN.

The proposal is in no way fitting for the back lane of a Victorian terrace. The modern design,

materials and size do not fit the neighbourhood or the plot size. A glass wall and balcony at

second storey level, literally sat on the hedge boundary of the park, is an ugly intrusion onto

a common village green and an eyesore for all the hundreds of people who enjoy this space

daily.

4. LOSS OF PRIVACY / RESIDENTIAL AMENITY.

The proposed dwelling would have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of the site.

The open aspect and serene nature of this part of the neighbourhood would be lost forever.

5. HIGHWAY SAFETY / PARKING AND ACCESS.

Milton road is already congested with vehicles. The proposed site lies at the corner where all

vehicles turn around to leave the no-through road. The proposed building would

compromise the ability to turn a vehicle. The site is currently used to park up to 4 vehicles

which would need to be parked elsewhere on Milton Road. Surely a better and more

responsible proposal would be to build 4 garages to ease congestion?

In summary, the proposed dwelling is too large for the site, one storey too high, not in keeping with

the neighbourhood and therefore, entirely inappropriate. Indeed, a similarly overbearing planning

application was made in 2004 and was correctly refused.

Yours sincerely,

David Howard and Tricia Jukes.

Owners and occupiers of 70 Church Rd.